CONCERNING 



THE BOYSON ESSAY 

AND ITS DEFENCE 



Prepared, 1909 

by 

Morgan Poitiaux Robinson, 

Richmond, Va. 

At the Request, an'd under the Supervision, 

of 

MRS. J. ENDERS ROBINSON, 

Historian-General 

of the 

United Daughters of the Confederacy 

Richmond, Va. 



ONE THOUSAND COPIES PRINTED 





Class _Z:iJ2^^:^ 
Book \ 

10 f 



Copyright N^. 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



«/fe 



CONCERNING 

THE BOYSON ESSAY 

AND ITS DEFENCE 



Prepared, 1909 

by 

Morgan Poitiaux Robinson, 

Richmond, Va. 

At the Request, and under the Supervision, 

of 

MRS. J. ENDERS ROBINSON, 

Historian-General 

of the 

United Daughters of the Confederacy 

Richmond, Va. 



ONE THOUSAND COPIES PRINTED 



Copyright, 1909, 

by 

Morgan Poitiaux Robinson, 

Richmond, Va. 



, 1 



249836 



EXPLANATORY 



The IT. D. C. Prize of $100 was established at Teachers' College, Columbia 
University, New York City, for the purpose of encouraging prospectivie teach- 
ers to investigate the sources of Confederate History. 

For the year 1908, the U. D. C's. Committee of Judges was composed of 
Dr. Edwin A. Alderman, Virginia, chairman; Dr. .John H. Finley, New York, 
and Dr. C. Alphonso Smi'th, North Carolina. This Committee awarded the 
prize for that year to the paper entitled, Roiert E. Lee — A Prese?it Estimate, 
by Miss Christine Boyson, of Minnesota, which appeared in the Confeder- 
ate Veteran, December, 1908. 

There were many protests against this award, and it seemed proper that 
this office should issue some statement upon the subject, but stress of work 
occasioned by editing the pamphlet, "The Restoration of the Name of Jef- 
ferson Davis," forced me to delegate the preparation of this monograph, as is 
stated upon the title page. In addition to this, I desire to acknowledge 
the services of Mr. William L. Phillips, editor of the Sigma Phi Epsilon, 
Journal, of Washington, D. C., who aided in checking out and verifying the 
percentages and proportions. 

In view of the fact that there has been criticism of many U. D. C. Chap- 
ters, because they criticised adversely the award of the prize to the Boyson 
Essay, the Historian-General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy 
feels no hesitancy in offering this analytical discussion of the essay and 
its defence for the specific purpose of showing that the various loyal Chap- 
ters were fully justified in their adverse criticism of the essay and of the 
judges who made the award. 

Copies of this monograph may be obtained at the folloAving rates: 

Single copies, delivered 10 cents. 

Dozen (to Chapters and Camps), delivered $1.00. 

(As no price is printed en the pamphlet, Chapters and Camps may find 
it to their advantage to buy at $1.00 per dozen and retail at such price as 
local conditions seem to justify.) 

Send only 2-cent stamps for single copies; only money orders for larger 
amounts. 

Address Mrs. J. Enders Robinson, Historian-General, U. D. C, No. 113 
Third Street, South, Richmond, Va. 



CONCERNING THE BOYSON ESSAY AND 
ITS DEFENCE* 

THE ESSAY. 

Well-informed persons have never seriously denied that the South, prior 
to the War between the States, contained a higher percentage of illiteracy 
than most of the other sections of the country, and than the country as a 
whole, the reasons for this higher percentage being the plantation system, 
which practically prevented an elaborate development of the free school, 
because miles of forest ofttimes separated the plantations; the slave, whose 
presence was a greater menace if he could read the inflammatory and incen- 
diary propaganda of the abolitionists; and the still more potent fact that, 
primarily, the slave was not a human being, but was recognized as a chattel 
by the Constitution of the United States (Art. I, Sees. 2 and 9; Art. IV, Sec. 
2), as well as by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United Statea 
(Prigg v. Penn., 16 Peters, 611), in which case Mr. Justice Story said: 

"Historically, it is well known that the object of this clause [Art. IV, Sec. 2] 
was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete right 
and title of ownership in their slaves, as property in every State in the Union 
into which they might escape from the State where they were held in ser- 
vitude. The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the 
security of this species of property in all the slaveholding States; and, in- 



*In the following statements, the groupings of the various States and 
Territories are those laid down in the United States Census of 1860, Agri- 
culture, XLVII-XLIX, at which time the United States was officially divided 
as follows: 

New England States — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island and Vermont — 6. Middle States — New York, Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and District of Columbia — 6. Southern States 
(THE SOUTH) — Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Ala- 
bama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida — 11. 
Western States — Ohio, Indiana, Michigan. Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Kansas, and Nebraska — 11. Pacific States* — Cal- 
ifornia, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington and Utah — 5. Unassigned to any 
grouping — Colorado, Dakota and Nevada — 3. 

For the purposes of this discussion, the territorial areas of the several 
sections, as given above, have been retained as cons'tant quantities through- 
out, except in the cases of Arizona, Idaho, Indian Territory' (with Okla- 
homa), Montana and W^yoming, mostly formed since 1860, each of which 
is composed either of territory other than that included in the above group- 
ings or else of parts of several of the States included in these groupings, 
and so the population, etc., of any of these five States in the Cens'us of 1900 
could not be justly credited to any single one of the States named in the 
grouiiings given above. 



deed, was so vital to the preservation of their domestic interests and insti- 
tutions that it cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamental article, 
without tlie adoption of wliich the Union could not have been formed. Its true 
design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevalent in the 
non-slaveholding States, by preventing them from intermeddling with, or 
obstructing, or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves." 

And this decision of Mr. Justice Story seems not extraordinary when 
we consider the fact that every one of the original thirteen States except 
Pennsylvania was slaveholding in 1787, when the present Constitution of 
che United States was adopted. 

However, with all its illiteracy and the reasons therefor — which latter are 
really immaterial so far as the present discussion is concerned — not until 
the recent utterances of Miss Boyson and her learned and able judges, had 
we heard of so flagrant departure from the facts of Southern History as is 
contained in the following quotation from her essay, entitled, "Robert E- 
Lee — A Present Estimate:'' 

^'■Intellectually, the South loas practically dead. Most of her people were 
densely ignorant; hence the great religious and educational movements 
which in the North had built a church and a schoolhouse at every cross- 
road, had swept by them unheeded." (Italics ours.) 

Inasmuch as this "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" condition 
seems to have arisen because "the great religious and educational move- 
ments, which in the North had built a church and a schoolhouse at every 
crossroads," had failed to leave the accustomed church and schoolhouse at 
'every crossroads in the South, it appears desirable to ascertain from his- 
tory what the condition of the South really was so far as churches and 
schools were concerned. And since all things are comparative — as a build- 
ing is tall by comparison with buildings which are not so tall — so the South 
must have been "densely ignorant" by comparison with some section which 
was simply "ignorant" — must have been "intellectually dead" by comparison 
with some section which was "intellectually dying", so to speak. 

Miss Boyson says, "To understand what this social order [of which Lee 
was the finest representative] was, one need but glance at the conditions of 
the South at the opening of the war." (Italics ours.) Miss Boyson and 
her judges seem to have "but glanced," but we have made a deeper inves- 
tigation of the conditions of the South, before, "at the opening of," and 
after the war, in order to get a more comprehensive and correct view of 
the subject than they seem to have acquired in their dilettante effort to 
chronicle Confederate history. 

It will be noted that no sources have been utilized in the discussion of 
the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" condition of the South, 
other than the Census of the United States for 1840,* 1850, 1860 and 1900. 



*A11 data for 1840 are taken from the figures for that year, as given in 
the Census for l!s50. This is because the edition of 1840 contained numerous 
errors, which were corrected in the edition of 1850, as stated in a note on 
the back of the title page of this later edition. 



three of which were printed prior to the War Between the States and one 
after it, while all were published by the United States Government; so, if 
there be any presumption of partiality, it must necessarily be against the 
South. It should be noted further that no Confederate or Southern source 
or authority has been used in the preparation of this paper. 

CHURCHES. 

There are no church statistics given in the United States Census of 1840, 
nor in that of 1900, so the nearest we can get to the present religious condi- 
tions of the country is the Census of 1890.* 

However, from the Census of 1850, combine Table 1 (ix) for population 
and Table XXXVIII (Ivii) for churches; from the Census of 1860, combine 
Population (iv) and Miscellaneous (p. 501) for churches; from the Census 
of 1890, combine Table 1 (pp. 2-3 of Part 1 of Vol. I) for population and Ta- 
ble 2 (pp. 8-13 of Vol. VIII), and we get the following tabulated statements: 

(See Table "A" and "B" on following page.) 

From Tables "A" and "B" it will be seen that, while the United States 
had an increase of 41.9 per cent, of churches for an increase of 35.6 per cent, 
of population between the years 1850 and 1860, and New England had an 
increase of 14.9 per cent, of churches for an increase of 14.9 per cent, of 
population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South had 
an increase of 37.4 per cent, of churches for an increase of 25.1 per cent, of 
population for that same period. Again we see that, while the United 
States had an increase of 162.2 per cent, of churches for an increase of 
98.2 per cent, of population between the years 1860 and 1890, and New Eng- 
land had an increase of 31.2 per cent, of churches for an increase of 50.0 
per cent, of population, yet this same South had an increase of 213.1 per 
cent, of churches for an increase of 80.9 per cent, of population during 
these three decades. 

However, as percentages are confusing to some persons, we have added 
the following table, which will doubtless make the subject a bit clearer for 



*Census Bulletin, No. 103 (September, 1909) gives the church statistics for 
1906, but, as we have no population data for that year and no church data 
for 1900, we must fall back to 1890 before we get to a point where we can 
compare church and population data of the same year. 



O OO 0> '=0 O ":»< 



"I - 05 10 "H 



ITS 00 CO 

rH UJ rC 



^ 



M e»3 T- 10 t- 



T-i -^ to to (O 
M t- T- OS 10 



si, U U i. U U U 

o o o o o o o 

L_J ^ ^^ ^' ^ Oi CO 

■^ en o> K' 00 i-i 

tC CX> ^ IM C— O 

T-T Oi |C ■^ cq tH 

CO CO 



^ .2 



■-^ 


C 


Si 


1 







rn 




n 


71 


m 




03 


72 


'C 








tn 



00 









c 

-a 

c 
1^ 


u 


<t-i 


tn 

OJ 


03 





.ti 









CC 


y 




OJ 


cS 


CJ 



^ & 



O 05 LO CM -. ,„ 

•-2 2* 2 2 S S 






ff^^^ 



;h ^ s- ^ ;^ ^ 
000000 

t- IM 00 CO M< tH 

CD -* 1^ «D Cq t- 

1— I CO 00 LO o 05 

t- CXT 01 r-T oT li5 

o o CM tn a> ■* 

-* t- 00 00 CO 

T-T T-^ CO 



.rt Cd 00 CO LO 00 05 



S 3 -"i CO T- (TJ to 
ft CO 00 oT o 



(-1 
pq 

■^ o .2 

00 ci 



O CD 00 >;1- o 00 

1-1 00 in o iH 

rH_ Oi 05 O 00 

00 -^ CO CD 00 

P cq cq h* 00 t^ 

a t-^ <x> CM_ CO tH 

(M CD r^ CD 



dl 



-a »3 -p 

i< +-' ^- ■►- 



" 5 o 



o 



bo 



:2; §1- C= Pm P 



tc uj u; 



Ji t- 10 OJ CO o CO 

-r, CO ■* 00 w 05 T-H 

o i-'a2t-OCT>c^«D 

?? 3cO^Nrinr4cOT-H 

S^ cq in ^ 

U 



CO pj 



CO 












H 






^^^^# : 


W 






05 


CO ^ 


ia 00 . 


u 




CJ 


■>*< 


in h- 


tH tH I 


tf 

g 




02 






CO CO 


CO <>q 

CO 










C 







1— 1 


CO 


CO "S- 


CO c^ • 


fc 




00 


00 


05 OC • 






CD 


'^f^ 


CO CO 











CO ^ 


CO 


H 












CB 












<; 












H 












K 

























^ 




03 








l-H 




<D 













^ 


CO 


.-1 in 


05 iH • 


L 


CD 





Oi 


la Oi 


CD • 


; 


00 


U 


<rq 


in 


10 10 • 


PQ 


i-l 


a 


10 


CO |C 


t-^ ; 


:; 




a 




T-< T- 


i-H 


H 













A 












fp 












<j 












^ 













^ 



t^ 00 T— CO 05 

O •* T— t- ,H 

CD CD 00 00 rH 

•*" Ci CM o 



03 



OS 



^ ^5 IX! ^ 'g 
H ^ « g o I 

12; gh pS PL^ P 



CO i- " 

PL^ P tJ 



03 O) <u 

"5 &£; 



+-> cd ni 






-a 3 he 
50c 



X! p: 



o5 
'C s 

o 

tw O 

o _ 
J-. "=" 

" -o 

03 fl 

he 



O > O ^ 



CO o 3 



O O ^ Q 

d) '•' — r-i r-, 

a "? 



a CO 
o m 

si 



^ S ^ ^ 

CO O) CO •>-> 

O 0) +-> t< 

o> CO 

00 03 ^ C 

•H ,fl -I-' 01 









O 1- „ 
3 



•c 2 



02 

CO 



0) 
C) 




;^ 




■^ 



CO 

Si 


01 
02 
03 




03 
"cO 


03 
01 

bit 

CO 


bJD 



03 







0. 




02" 


02 
0) 



fl ts 



CO 


Si 


3 
^ 


CO 


CO 
Xi 





.2 





02 


>. 





ft 


02 

02 

3 




CD 
00 


.2 




02 


03 

.2 





a 


iH 


a 


CO 


V 


ft 


"*"* 


<(-l 





S 


CO 


"cO 



he 
C 






02 
be 
C 


Si 

ft 

02 


13 
0) 

02 


0) 
13 




"o 


ft 



3 




C 



02 



02 


CO 


02 


So 
01 


bo 

C 


02 

Si 

0) 


■*^ 


tn 


£ 


2 




> 


Oj 


CO 


+-» 


Sh 


02 


02 







02 


.s 





3 

s 


S-, 
02 



_cO ^ 



C 02 

'5 ^ 

Si . *•> 

•-■ 03 02 

+j O fi 

12 CO > 

<M o 2 

O k ^, 



CO 


02 


bo 




,C 


^ 


C 




+-> 












Si 




02 


^4-1 


S 





02 





"O 


02 


-o 






'11 


C2 


d 


02 


a 


fl 


4) 





S 



d 


C 



Si 
03 


t2 


*g 


^ 


02 


Si 


"bo 


-S 


'O 


5 

^ 


d 


p 


02 




i> 





erf 


05 


<i-j 


ft 












^ 






02 




02 


r 


^ 


3 


X 



m "2 



42 CO g 

0^ ft 

•^ o ^ 

bo S^ CO 

> ^ ^ 

t> -!-> Oj 

O *-> 



? .S _i 



« <U 02 



03 CO 
P 



J3 s- 

O CO 



r; 02 

O W 

02 

02 C 

bo 02 

C 42 

'S3 S 

^ o 

03 y 



^ O 



;:: a 



-2 "= 

2 <» o" o t:! 

^ rH 03 ^ o^ 

■^ <g CO g- 03 

- 02 ;c 



fl C ^ =« 02 



02 



u fC 



- bo 3 o ft C 

C § 02-^?^^ 

03 £ ^ C - .5 

^ cO c_. •'-' 02 o 

-^^ ., r ^ -r ft 



i ^3 c 



•ti!?^ 



r ^ " ft 

02 : o3 ^ " 

-^ H 5 •- H £ 

d '^ bo 5 

02 _Si 

bo K* C 



9 

some of our readers. Based upon the references for Tables "A" and "B," 
above, we find that we get the proportions set forth in the following table: 

(See Table "C" or lollowiug page.) 

From these figures, taken from the several issues of the United States 
Census indicated, we see that history does not bear out the statements of 
the essayist and her judges, so far as churches were concerned, for the 
South of 1850, with less than one-third of the population of the whole coun- 
try, had t)iore than one-third the churches of the whole country, or one 
church for every 5G8 of her population, while New England had one church 
for every 592 of her population, and the United States at this time had 
one church for every 609 of her population. The figures also show that the 
South of 1860, with nearly one-third of the population of the whole country, 
had nearly one-third the churches of the whole country, or a church for 
every 517 of her population, while New England still had one church for 
every 592 of her population — the increase of churches and population having 
been the same during this decade — and the United States had one church 
for every 582 of her population. Furthermcne, it will be noted that not only 
did the South, in both 1850 and 1860, have more churches to her popula- 
tion than the country as a whole, but more than did any other section 
of the country. 

It will be seen that in these ten years (1850-1860), Avhile the United 
States so increased the number of its churches that it reduced the ratio 
of churches to population from 609 to 582, or 27 points, and New England 
retained in 1860 its ratio of 1850 (592). yet the "intellectually dead" and 
"densely ignorant" South so increased the number of its churches in this 
period that it reduced the ratio of churches to population from 568 to 517, 
or 51 points. In other words, the "intellectually dead" and "densely ig- 
norant" South of 1850 had more churches to its population than did the 
United States or any other section of it in 1860, thus being at that date 
ten years ahead of its time so far as churches wei'e concerned. 

But probably the most remarkable item of all is to be found in the fig- 
ures of 1890, which is little less than astoimding. These figures show that 
in that year — twenty-five years after the scourge of battle had left the South 
little less than a desolation and a wilderness — this same battle-scarred, 
poverty-stricken, "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South, with 
a bit more than one-fourth of the population of the whole country (26.43 
per cent.)), had 55,089 of the 141,597 churches in the territory covered by 
the groupings of 1860, or 38.9 per cent.* 



*It is an interesting .sidelight upon this discussion to refer to Census Bulle- 
tin No. 103 (September, 1909), where we find (pp. 56-7) that in 1906 the 
1S8,84.3 churches in the territory covered by the groupings of 1860 were dis- 
tributed as follows: New England, 8,143 or 4.31 per cent.; Middle States, 
28,404 or 15.04 per cent.; THE SOUTH, 77,062 or 40.81 per cent.; Western 
States, 65,364 or 34.61 per cent.; Pacific States, 6,061 or 3.21 per cent., and 
Unassigned, 3,809 or 2.02 per cent. 



rt o to OO CO CO 

OO rH m LO 05 



03 h» CO CO 
CO t— OO lO 
to lO lO >-l 



VI 
d) 
,C CO ,H in Oi tH 

O "^ LC o> to o 

Jh 'M O lO 'O ^ 

5 if^ co" rC t-' 
x: ^ 1- th 
Q 







O CO 


CVI 


CO (M 


tH 






•42 CO 


CO CO 


to -^ 


c- 






rf '•^- 


CO CO 


10 00 


03 




o 


IS in 

5 <='' 


CO CO 


c-^ c-^ 


LO 




to 


CO 


•* c- 


-* 




oo 


a tH 


CO T— 


irq 10 






T-H 


s- 


00 oT 







^ 












o 












H-l 
















^^#^#^ 




o 




«-l "= 


10 <o 


00 iH 






0-: 


CO <0 


1(5 CO 








in to 

C<l CO 


00 














o 












H 












M 




=^ 


c- 00 


C- CO 








+J OS 


00 CO 


00 






10 


to in 


LO 10 






1— t 




tH 




u 












« 












!:3 












W 












o 













OJ !>• 00 T— to C5 

^ O -tt< T- C- rH 

O to to 00 00 rH 

Sh n<" 05 cvT O 

P ■«- r-l 

o 



O to 00 ^ O 00 

•-- ^ 00 in o ^ 

*i 1-1 05 0>_ O 00 

—I 00 -^ CO to 00 

p cvi c^ h^ CO t^ 

a i- to oj_ CO T-i 

o c<r to tC to 



Cj 01 



Ml 5 3 ^ ^ 'S 

'^ iJ W ^ O -J 

1 1 1 1 ^ g 



cj o to T- t- eg T}< 

05 O O) to CO tH 

tw 

O •* to CO to (M i-H 
1-1 CO CO 



O 00 CQ 0» t~ i:~ O 
+^ t- eo O) in 00 (^q 

to to CM "^ to to 



J t- 10 O) CO o CO 
,C CO -^ 00 eg a> 1— I 
C oi t- O 05 <M to 



JJ to t-Ni" in r-T 
i c<i in in 

O 



.S CT> in «M oi LO t- 
-l-J -^ OS CT> to 05 00 
Cu C- -*■<*-* CO o 



•«i^ -^ <0 CO eg rH 



c O 

H <D CO 



:^i 



^ 5 'S 



^ S ->- t> oj « ^ 



11 

Here it will be seen that in these thirty years (1860-1890), while the 
United States so increased the number of its churches that it reduced the 
ratio of churches to population from 582 to 440, or 142 points, and New Eng- 
land increased her ratio from 592 to 678, or 86 points, yet the poverty- 
stricken, "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South so increased 
the number of her churches that her ratio was reduced from 517 to 299, or 
218 points. Furthermore, the figures show that at both of these dates 
(1860 and 1890), this same South had more churches to its population than 
any other section and than the United States as a whole. 

This develops the fact that the "intellectually dead" and "densely ig- 
norant" South of 1860 had more churches to its population than the coun- 
try as a whole, or any other section of it at that time; also thikt An 1860 
it not only had more than any other section in 1890 (except the Western 
States), but more than the country as a whole in 1890, except for itts own 
large percentage. In other words, the South of 1860 was more than thirty 
years ahead of its time, so far as furnishing churches for its population 
was concerned. 

So much for churches. We will now turn our attention to an investiga- 
tion of the schools of the South. 

SCHOOLS.* 

In this discussion of educational institutions, as shown by the Censuses 
of ISJfO, 1850 and 1S60, and the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 
1900, the method of these issues has been followed in that the number of 
schools, as compared with the total free population of each section, for we 
find no returns for slaves attending school. f It should be noted that the 
figures and results take no account of the number of tutors and govern- 
esses or of the number of "home schools" (all of them widely popular edu- 
cational methods of the Old South) ; nor do they undertake to embrace the 
number of Southern students who were being educated abroad (also a popu- 
lar method in the Old South), and this because we have no data on these 
several points, although tutors and governesses are evidently classified un- 
der the general head of "teachers" in the lists of occupation. 



*As in the case of churches (above), it is presumed that not a single school 
of any kind in The South was destroyed during the War between the States, 
which presumption is necessary, as we have no data on that point. 

tWhile there will doubtless be some adverse criticism of thus eliminating 
the whole of the slave population, when ascertaining the school percentages, 
yet we anticipate no objections on the part of the Committee of Judges, since 
their chairman evidently holds the same opinion as to the status of the 
slave as we do, for reference to Facts About Southern Educational Progress, 
1905, p. 3, will show where "The Campaign Committee of the Southern Edu- 
cation Board" (of which the chairman of the Judges was a member) gives 
its approval to this same method of eliminating the slaves for the purpose 
of ascertaining the percentages of Illiteracy, as can be seen by reference to 
pp. 43 and 45 of that pamphlet. 



12 

As stated, the number of educational institutions is contrasted with the 
total free population instead of the usual method of comparing the number 
of students returned with the free population of the States to which they 
are credited. This because, not only would Virginia (for example), an 
acknowledged school centre, get the credit for students who were not her 
own sons, and so would not enrich her intellectually, but at the same time 
the States to which these students really belonged would get no credit at 
all for their sons who were actually students, although in other Sta/tes, and 
would ultimately add to the intelligence of the mother State. 

This method is applied to sections in the hope that we are getting a more 
correct idea of the provision in the matter of educational institutions, which 
each State felt called upon to make for its educable population. Of course, 
this provision was to an extent for the educable populations of the other 
sections which sent their students, but by comparing sections (instead of 
States) in this manner, the error seems to be reduced to a minimum. 

The following tables are based upon these references: For the year 1840, 
combine (from the Census of 1850) Table I (ix) for population and Table 
XLIV (Ixi) for schools; from the Census of 1850. combine Table I (ix) for 
population and Table XLIl (Ix) for schools; from the Census of 1860, com- 
bine Population, pp. .592-5 and Miscellaneous, pp. 505-6 for schools; and 
from the Census of 1000, use Table VII (xxii) for population, but this is-< 
sue of the Census contains no data as to schools — presumably because this 
ifc within the province of the Bureau of Education. Therefore the data as to 
public schools are based upon the Reports of the Commissioner of Education. 
1900, Ixxiii, 1901, Ixxxv, and 1902, Ixxxi, where we find the "number of 
buildings used as schoolhouses" — the three Reports being necessary to get 
complete data for 1900. The 1900 data for the second grand division of edu- 
cational institutions — "academies and other schools" — is to be found in the 
same Report for 1899-1900, 2, p. 2145. The 1900 data for universities and 
colleges is obtained by eliminatng the duplicates, after combining the fol- 
lowing tables, taken from the same Report for 1899-1900, Vol. 2: Tables 
3 (p. 1880); 15 (p. 1892); 19 (p. 1894); 23 (p. 1898); 29 (p. 1904); 31 (p. 
1944) 32 (p. 1946); 33 (p. 1954); 9 (p. 1976); 10 (p. 1986); 11 (p. 1992); 
1 (p. 2071); and 9 (p. 2079). This combination is necessary because the 
earlier Censuses include theological, law, medical, military, normal and 
agricultural schools under the genera] classification "colleges and univer 
sites." 

As the educable population differs from that given in Table "A" above— 
the slaves being eliminated for the reasons already stated — the following 
table is necessary; 



Ol M O CD ■* 



u, u t- %^ '':' u 

O O O O O o 

lo lo o> lo T— I o 

t- GC CM lO O T— ( 

O lO CO C^ O t— 

o^ M in o-I li^ CO 

O T— I X— O CO rJH 

-Tt* t- T— 00 CO 

l-H T^ CO 



0-5 T-H h~ ■* 



cti i; 5? h fe ^ ^- 

qj O O O O O O 



e) c-5 •* t^ -* CO o 



O O O CD CO CO 
O CO '^ O tH ■* 

05 csi T— o lo 



^ 



00 Si 



tH C^^ O d CO O 

05 Oi 00 lO CO tH 

T-H 0"j 0> OO CO t>. 

lO O 0> CD CO CO 

CO -^ r^ CJi i-H •^ 

,-1 c-q in 00 lo 

CO oo' m Oi^ 



^ 












o 












l-H 

a, 
















^^^^ : : 






i-i 


O CM 


la . . 




to 


C<I 


O O 


CD . . 




cq 


CO CO 


m . 


( ) 




4) 


u 


U i- 


^ L. S-. 


Ph 




5 


O 


o o 


o o o 






C 


t- 


03 00 


Oi ca 


w 




hH 


iH 


o in 


oo 03 • 


hJ 






CO 


.-1 CO 


o c^ • 


M 






CO 




i^ oo" ■ 






OJ 


O CO 


03 t^ 


<J 






^ 


la O 


T-H i-H 


O 








i-l r- 


l^^ 


!^ 












Q 












W 












fa 












O 












H 




fl 


CD 


C- 1— 


L- M • 






j—t 


o in 


Oi 03 




o 


a 


oo 


00 <^ 


t~^ oo" ■ 


H 


00 


3 


M 


C] to 


CO c- 


T-1 


t- 


lO ^ 


O r-( 






a 
o 


C^l 


CD <d- 


CO 


;^ 













c£i .^ 7— i T^ O (M c,-:! o 

<— ' '"^ i-y-i -r+i K^ r^, ^ _u 



^ Ph 



03 oo CO 00 

05 Oi <y> o 

t- c^ CM lO 

^" o o o" 

CO cq CO 05 

1.-1 o rl^ « 

c-f lo CO CO 






m "^ 



be 



1,1 -t-> '^ tfl 

h ;^ Oh ^ 



t> 






































o 


l— 




^^^^^S^ 


^ 




o 










la 


SM 


CD 


iH 




o 


t^ 




OO 


I> h- 


,-i 






<M 




t/J 




lU 


r- 


o in 


oo 


cr> 


LO 


t- 




o 




to 




T-< CM 


1-H 




oo 


iH 




ira 


rt 
















CO 


<D 


















CO 


S-, 


^ 


U i. 


S-l 


b< 


s-l 


;^ 






■-< 


O 


O 


O O 


o 


n 


O 


o 




> 


fi 
















rt 




HH 


CD 


CO in 


o 


cyj 




CO 






^., 




CM 


oo 00 


T-H 


CO 


"*< 


1-H 










OO 


>-i ■* 


CO 


CO 


o 


O 




0) 






CO 


m rj- 


(M 


^ 


03 


CO 




> 






LO 


CO in 


CO 


r~ 


lO 


t- 


-a 


' 






-* 


CO CO 


Ot.' 


CO 


C^J 


T-H 


0; 








C^] 


CO ^ 


t- 


e-3 






to 'o 


0) 

t3 



ri +J £ 



O L- LO in 


oq 


T-H i-H 


^ IS 


Kl O 


.ii ,-1 I- CO 


CO 


LO LO 


e-1 O 


C 


5 CM co'tI- 


03 


co c-f 


CD ^ 
co" O 


to 


^S 05 o CO 


lO 




oo ^ 


Q, lO rH 05_ 

o LO t>^ cT 


c- 


CO o-i 


LO ^ 


PL, -^ T- 


C^l 




t^ 


' 










'-' 










•" 


« J= 










cj 












o 


O "- 
























to 










CC 


-3 <S> 










'^ 


q; 












+-' 'C 










o 


S^ 










r> 


t « 












O 3 
O 










' ' 


o 










to 


C cc" 










73 

03 


>; c 










r^ 
rf 


^a 
^ - 










to 


rt 










CC 


D O 










-o 


+j ^ 










o 


o 
























u to 










to 


















to 






Q) 


II 


■c) to X 


01 


to . 

0> 


tf 

a 


"cS 














ew Engla 
iddle Sta 
HE SOU 


M 


+-; oi 


rt 


to 


CO 
O CO 


o 

to 


to 


m 

o 


s 

^ 


O 02 

CD CO 
-4— ++ 


^ Si- 


fi 


fcP 


P 







CO -.^i in as o 



!i t-, I. tn S- i< 

O O O o o o 

<ro iH in t- f^ 

oo (^q T— CO i^ 

CO c- ^ o> OS 



^ 



rH in 00 .-I 

00 iM in C<l 

rH •* 1— lo 

CM 00 



OS CO CO o ,-1 

o Tti T— CO t— 

"^ ■* eo uT OS 
cnT c^ evT t-^ 

T- CO 



^ 



r-, ^ 



OO Tjl O t- '-H 

CO CD CM <>o t- 

t— 05 O I— I "^ 



■kV vS> v9 vV 

CO t- ^a- oq 



u< u :. U U t-, 

o o o o o o 

CO I- 00 CO CO . 

t^ 1.-^1 O CD 1— I 

"JO L- 00 lO 



lo CO in o CO 
o -!j< o '^^ jh 
05 cq to cq 

^' CO ^5 oj" 



^ 



oo ^ O tr- ^ . 


o 




oo CO CM CO i- . 


oo 




C- 05 O iH CT> • 


oo 




in ^ 00 00 


t- 




tH (N T- -^ 


o 










o 






C 






^ 



C^l O CO T-H t_ 



CO 


CO 


(O 


(M 








eg 


^- 


(M 










co 


■H 


oo 




L. 


Ij 


1. 


!^ 


t. 


, , 


<J 


o 


o 


o 


O 


O 


P 












o 


oo 


CM 


OS 


r^ 








O 




ira 




05 


05 


O 


00 


CO 


CO 




CD 


in 


oo 

lO 


00 


00 



CO m I"- CO 
CO [-^ irf o 



C « |_ Ctf CD 

^ "- ^ K^ as C 



oo c^ CM CO 00 i-i 
LC m CM o c^ CO 

t^ OS O O CO CO 



rrj CO T +-' M 

S ■'-' I— +-> -1-1 ,— 

■S -5 D «2 5 s 

H a; (O ^ o •- 



: « 

(0 

<w IS 

O ■ 4> 

|o| 
m 3 w 

o a, C 

0) O ■" 
x: - 2 



o a « 



-u CD ^- £ 



a -9 



P * CM ■ 

^ ft 

P ft 



15 

Tables "D" and "E" show that, while the United States had an increase 
of 71. (i per cent, of public schools for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of cdu- 
cable population between 1840 and 1850, and New England had an increase 
of 11.8 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 22.1 per cent, of educable 
population during this same period, yet the South had an increase of 
138.4 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 30.2 per cent, of educable 
population; also that between the years 1850 and 1860, while the United 
States had an increase of 33.2 per cent, of public schools for an increase 
of 37.1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase 
of 5.6 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 14.9 per cent, of educa- 
ble population, yet the South had an increase of 32.5 per cent, of public 
schools for an increase of 25.0 per cent, of educable population. Between 
1860 and 1900 we find that, while the United States had an increase of 
129.9 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 172.1 per cent, of edu- 
cable population, and New England had a decrease of 6.2 per cent, of public 
schools for an increase of 78.4 per cent, of educable population, yet the 
poverty-stricken South had an increase of 316.3 per cent, of public schools 
for an increase of 257.3 per cent, of educable population — the freedom of 
the slaves bringing them into this class. 

And finally we see that at the close of the two decades ending 1860, while 
the United States had an increase of 128.5 per cent, of public schools for 
an increase of 88.1 per cent, of -educable population, and New England had an 
increase of 18.1 per cent, of public schools for an increase of 40.3 per cent, 
of educable population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" 
South had "at the opening of the war" an increase of 215.8 per cent, of 
public schools for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of educable population. 

Here, however, we will leave the confusing percentages and consider the 
following proportions, based upon the references already given: 

(See Table "F" on following pacre.) 

Here we see that the South of 1840, with less than one-fourth of the edu- 
cable population of the whole country, had 12.09 per cent, of the public 
schools of the whole country, or one public school for every 601 of her 
educable population, while New England had 28.24 per cent, of the 
public schools, or one school to every 168 of her educable population, and 
the United States had one to every 309; in 1850 the United States had one 
to every 247, and New England had one to every 183, while the South had 
one to every 328; in 1860, the United States had one to every 254, and New 
England had one to every 199, while the South had one to every 310; and in 
1900, the United States had one to every 302, and New England had one to 
every 379, while the South had one to every 266. 

It will be seen that in the first decade (1840-1850), while the United 
States so increased the number of its public schools that it reduced the 
ratio of these schools to educable population from 309 to 247, or 62 points, 
and New England increased its ratio from 168 to 183, or 15 points, yet the 
South decreased its ratio from 601 to 328, or 273 points; likewise, between 



™ O 05 0> CO CO 

tH -^ CO 1^ O O 



^ 



oo oo ;d o 



^ 



^ 



02 L— "^ Cd CO O 

05 Oi Ij* -^ C~ -^ 

10 cq o ro CO CO 



^ 



^ CO tH 00 00 JJ 

_, 00 c» CM O 2? 

'-' ,-1 oj n '■•^i '^ 



CO m CM c^ M '"' 



15 

O 

< 

P 
CIi 

o 

H 
W 

u 

p 
w 

o 

o 
o 

u 
u 

ra 



00 Hi 



^ 



Lo CO m o 

O -^ O <M 
Oi M lO c^ 



o c— T- r- i^ 

1-1 o If) 05 o^ 

T— i ^ CO 10 t-^ 

00 co" »^ i>r 00 

iM IM to 00 C~ 

I- LO <a^ O '-< 

cS ^ rt '■£ 



■«}< o o> 00 



05 «D 1^ I— 

e<i i-H O ^ti 

CO Lt5 h«. CO 

CO C~^ lO o 



H 




3 




J 




3 




m 




Ph 




< 








H 




c 











Oi CO CO CO 






^ 


o:> d 




o> 


_cS 


t- c^i CM lo 




"^ 


3 


'*' 




00 


CO c^ CO s» 






Ch 


(>J '^ ^_ 








. 


C<f UO CO CO 









CO 



-a u 

Si 



rf c 



^ §l-^fcp 



00 c<i CM CO CO rj 

10 i^ CM o C<1 55 

L~ 05 O O 00 ^ 

-*" rH in C-^ ctT O*^ 

i-i CO 1^ o 



t- li^ in c<i T-i r; 

<— I L^ 10 CO 10 '^ 

O i-H Tf ■* C- "^"^ 

Cq CD "^f CtT CO J2 

Ci O CO l^ CO o 

10 T-H O) l^ 00 '^'5, 

in c-^ 01 t- CO ^ 



OS -^ O t- o 

LO 1-1 h^ CO o> 



^^ 



Oi o O LO <^ 
Oi CO T— o cq 

i-l CO CO C<l Lft 



^ 


CO ^ t— T-H 


y 


CO CO CM 00 t- • 


Ul 


C- OJ i-H 05 ■ 





u:5 '^ 00 00 ; 




i-H cq T- •* 






^ 




S 




CM 





I— I CO O IN CO o 

Oi Cl 00 ir^ CO rH 

1— I O^ O CO CZ) t— 

10 O O CO CO CO 

00 -a* ^- C5 1-1 ■* 

iH C<1 in CO 10 



r^ to -p 



CO 



be 



|2i 





03 


•rt 


,C 


a; 


<V 


-u 


is 


s 


tft 





CC 




'd 


03 


a; 



O r-H 

3 rC 



0. o 



rrl 


CO' 




CO 


r^l 


02 




'"1 V 


■C 


CO CO 



^ p 



17 

1S50 and 1860, while the United States increased its ratio from 247 to 254, 
or 7 points, and New England increased its ratio from 183 to 199. or 16 
l)oints, yet the South again decreased its ratio from 328 to 310, or 18 points. 

In the four decades ending 1900, the United States increased its ratio 
from 254 to 302, or 48 points, and New England increased its ratio from 
199 to 379, or 180 points, yet the poverty-stricken South decreased its ratio 
from 310 to 2GG. or 44 points. 

In the period from 1840-1860. the United States decreased its ratio from 
309 to 254, or 55 points, and New England increased its ratio from 168 to 
199, or 31 points, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South 
"at the opening of the war" decreased its ratio from 601 to 310, or 291 points. 

Furthermore, we see that in 1860 the South had one public school to 
every 310 of her educable population, and in 1900 the United States had 
one to every 302; in other words, the South of 1860 had practically the 
same ratio of public schools to educable population that the United States 
had in 1900, and so was substantially as well off in this respect in 1860 
as the United States was in 1900. 

Our next to])ic is "Academies and Other Schools" — the second general 
classification of educational institutions. Using Table "D," above, for edu- 
cable population, we also get the following table fi'om the same references: 

(See Table "G" on following page.) 

From these tables we see that, while the United States had an increase 
of 86.1 per cent, of academies for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of educable 
population between 1840 and 1850, and New England had an increase of 
56.3 per cent, of academies for an increase of 22.1 per cent, of educable 
population, yet the South had an increase of 58.9 per cent, of academies 
for an increase of 30.2 per cent, of educable population; also that between 
1850 and 1860, while the United States had an increase of 14.0 per cent, of 
academies for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of educable population, and New 
England had an increase of .03 per cent, of academies for an increase of 
14.9 per cent, of educable population, yet the South had an increase of 24.9 
per cent, of academies for an increase of 25.0 per cent, of educable ponu- 
lation. 

From 1860 to 1900 we see that, while the United States had a decrease 
of 71.6 per cent, of academies for an increase of 172.1 per cent, of educable 
population, and New England had a decrease of 73.9 per cent, of academies 
for an increase of 78.4 per cent, of educable population, yet the wrecked 
and devastated South had a decrease of 73.9 ]ier cent, (the same as New 
England) for an increase of 257.25 per cent, of educable population — the 
slaves having become free. 

In the two decades just prior to the war (1840-1860) we see that, while 
the United States had an increase of 112.1 per cent, of academies for an 
increase of 88.1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an 
increase of 56.8 per cent, of academies for an increase of 40.3 per cenft. of 





* «^ 

aj o t- o> ^ t"" 

S W (M M 

O fci i^ t. t< f- tn 

C O O O O O O 



CO -0 00 Oi '-^ 

o:) 00 T-i o 

»^ CO 



^ 



oc CO to «jd 



O O O O o o 

>XI lO «^ O oo 

lO as T- m ,—1 

00 cc CM o th 



^ 



o .iii 



<X> <Ji iti 
OS o^ 5 

'-^ eg 



00 >55 If) t~ OO 

00 ..-1 »3- 05 t-H 
OS CV ^ CO I— ( 



02 












h^ 










o 










o 










M 










o 

02 






vV^ ^O -..C vC 










CO 


c- a> oi 




tf 




0) 


U3 


oi 00 o 




H 




02 


LO 


00 If) f^ 




o 




o 


o 


Sfefeog 




^ 




-_ <-r 






'— ' 


uo 


M to '^^ 5 


Q 
< 






CO 


-fi!t^ : 










02 










S 




















§ 










•H 










Q 










"<i 










Q 






uo 


■M r>~ CJ5 2 


<J 




^ 


oo 


<a in t~ ^ 


o 


s 


Ci 


CT3 O) 0> 


Z 


oo 


^3 




T— H ^- T— * 




erf 






l-H 




CJ 






W 




<^ 






m 










-a^ 










W 










« 










o 










:?^ 




0) 









OQQQP 

05 Oi O) 00 ,-( 



!^ ;h t. ^ ;^ ^ 

o o o o o o 

QQQQQ 

T-H CO (^ t^ ^ UO 

00 -*" O ■* ^^ 
t- T*< 00 as 



C^ CO O O ^ liO 

in CO CO in ^ i-H 

M Tt< to ^ T-H 



r- '.^ '^j %^f -rr 

2 S «= o C«J CO 



-< 



C O) J- cd 

^ ti H *^ 

ClflQ ^ 

H ., CO H 



72 C 



?:SUJ (« y 03 

5 S X ►'^ =« c 



-Z HI '^ 



f^ 5 « i ^ -s 



p 



# 



CO M rf 05 T-H 

CO lO rf 00 oo 



^ 



lO 00 I — 1— I C^ CP 
1-H CD to O t^ t- 



# 



t- CO CM tc 'y^ 

C<f GO CvT lO ^ 



o c^ CO o:^ c^i ^ 

<^ >-< en 00 05 ^t5 

c-^ ■* T- c^^ t"-; 00 

T-T in T^ ^ lo ;p- 

C<I CO CK^ CP Ol QQ 



to c-i N. o> '=" 

00 ^TJ lO t^ "^ 

O^ CTi 0> O 



t- CO ^ o 

lO OO po LO 

c<i -^ CO •»** 



o 










)-H 










^ 










^ 
a 


r^ 


cc 


1- 


T— t™ 


o 


T— 1 


o 


in oi 




,_| 


Tt> 


<0 in 


t^ 


in ra 


GO 


CO 


rf t-' 


P4 

o 




lO 
«5 


to oo 
rf o 


Ph 


O 








H 










h4 










PQ 










o1 










U 










P 


CS 


^^t>S> 


O 


CO 


Oi 


r^ o 


W 


■«< 


00 


o t- 




^ 


Oi 


^_j 


1^ O 


O 




CO 


CO rH 


H 










m 










g 




















i 










H 




L- 


lO 


(O O] 


Q 


o 




lO 


00 rt 


<< 


"^ 


LO 


00 


h- O] 


O 


'-' 


CO 


t< 


OJ .-H 


<JJ 











t- in lO c^i T— I i— ' 

^ t^ lO <£■ in in 

o T-H ^ >a< t- ■>: 

oq to" ^ oi oo N 

CT> o CO in oo o 

in ,— I 0> t^ oo CO 



c- in in T-i '^ 

CO O in CO c- 



CO c^i CM -^ in 

t~ t— 00 00 in 

r-H M CM O CO 

co' -S" CM l>-' -"jH 



^ 



w 


S 


O Tt< T- t^ 

M CO CO ^ 


J 


Qj 


to o CM CO 


m 


-c 


.-l" T-^ 


<< 






h 


< 





00 o> in t^ oo 

00 C<J ^ 05 ,H 

o^ c^ rj* CO ,H 



oi X CO 00 

O"- CTi 0> O 

t^ c^i CM in 

-»r o o o 

CO -"^l ^ "^ 

OJ O 'J^ 00 

csf in CO c 



O) 



a: 



6D 5 3 M 
'^ 4) CO 

/<; ^ I- i:^ (ii P 



OX) 



^-^ c^i O <M CO o 

ov CTj 00 in CO T-i 

1— I cr; o oo 00 t— 

in o 05 cp CO CO 

CO ■* 1^. Oi ,-1 -* 

l-H C^J in CO Ln 

CO oo in Oi 



> 2 UJ ^ £ ^ ii 
J ^ I ^ rt c c 
5^ Sh p: pH p D 



20 

v?ducable population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" 
South, "at the opening of the war" (quoting the "Prize Essay") had an 
increase of 98.6 per cent, of academies for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of 
educable population. Again, however, we will leave the percentages an 
look at the proportions, the references being those already given: 

TABLE "H"— ACADEMIES TO EDUCABLE POPULATION. 

(See Table "H" on preceding- page.) 

Here we see that the South of 1840, with less than one-fourth of the edu- 
cable population of the whole country, had 37.97 per cent, of the academies 
of the whole country, or one academy to every 2,786 of its educable popula- 
tion, while New England had 19.43 per cent, of the academies, or one to 
every 3,547 of its educable population, and the United States had one to 
every 4,498; that in 1850, the United States had one academy to every 
3,313 of its educable population, and New England had one to every 2,770, 
while the South had one to every 2,281; that in 1860, the United States had 
one academy to every 3,986 of its educable population, and New Englaji^ 
had one to every 3,173, yet the Sou'th had one to every 2,282; and that in 
1900 the United States had one academy for every 38,131 of its educable 
population, and New England had one for every 21,760, while the South 
had one' for every 31,196. 

Again, we see that in the first decade (1840-1850), while the United 
States so increased the number of its academies that it reduced the ratio 
of academies to its educable population from 4,498 to 3,313, or 1,185 points, 
and New England reduced its ratio from 3,547 to 2,770, or 777 points, yet 
the South reduced its ratio from 2,786 to 2,281, or 505 points; likewise, that 
between 1850 and 1860, while the United States increased its ratio from 
3,313 to 3,986, or 673 points, and New England increased its ratio from 
2,770 to 3,173, or 403 points, yet 'the South increased its ratio from 2,281 to 
2,282, or only one point — thereby nearly holding its own in spite of the 
general increase all over the country. 

In the four decades ending 1900, the United States increased its ratio 
from 3,986 to 38,131, or 34,145 points,* and New England increased its ratio 
from 3,173 to 21.760 or 18.587 points, yet the wrecked and devastated South 
increased its ratio from 2,282 to 31,196, or only 28,914 points, although the 
slaves had been freed and the educable population had increased 257.3 
per cent. 

In the period from 1840 to 1860, while the United States decreased its 
ratio from 4,498 to 3,986. or 512 points, and New England decreased its 
ratio from 3,547 to 3,173, or 374 points, yet the "intellectually dead" and 
"densely ignorant" South, just here "at the opening of the war" (quoting 
the "Prize Essay"), decreased its ratio from 2,786 to 2,282, or 504 points. 



* Note that during these decades the academy lost srouncl enormously 
all over the country. In spite of a larg-e increase of population. 



21 

Furthermore, we see that the South, in 1840, had one academy for every 
2,786 of its educable population; in 1850, one to every 2,281; in 1860, one 
to every 2,282; and also that at each of these dates the South had not only 
more academies to its educable population than any other section of the 
country, and the country as a whole, but also more than any other section 
or the country as a whole in 1900; in other words, the South of 1840 was 
more than sixty years ahead of its time so far as furnishing academies for 
its educable population was concerned. 

We will now look into the matter of universities and colleges, the third 
g'eneral classification, and the institutions for higher education. Still using 
Table "D" for educable population, we get the following table from the 
references already given: 



TABLE "I-.T"— INCREASE OF COLLEGES. 

(See Table "I-J" on following page.) 

From Tables "D" and "I-J" we see that, while the United States had an 
increase of 35.3 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of 
educable population between the years 1840 and 1850, and New England 
had an increase of 5.3 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 22.1 per cent, 
of educable population during this same period, yet the South had an in- 
crease of 44.4 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 30.2 per cent, of edu- 
cable population; that between the years 1850 and 1860, while the United 
States had an increase of 100.0 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 37.1 
per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase of 4.7 
per cent, of colleges for an increase of 14.9 per cent, of edvicable population, 
yet the South had an increase of 135.8 per cent, of colleges for an increase 
of 25.0 per cent, of educable population; and also that between the years 
1860 and 1900, while the United States had an increase of 147.3 per cent, of 
colleges for an increase of 172.1 per cent, of educable population, and New 
England had an increase of 247. G per cent, of colleges for an increase of 78.4 
!)er cent, of educable population, yet the South, with all its poverty and deso- 
lation, had an increase of 72.2 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 257.3 per 
cent, of educable population, the freeing of the slaves making an abnormal 
increase. 

"We also note that at the close of the two decades, ending 1860, while the 
United States had an increase of 170.0 per cent, of colleges for an increase 
of 88.1 per cent, of educable population, and New England had an increase 
of 10.5 per cent, of colleges for an increase of 40.3 per cent, of educable 
population, yet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South, 
"at the opening of the war," had an increase of 246.4 per cent, of colleges 
for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of educable population. 



t- \o CM CO <3> . 

■^ LO N. u:5 oo 

irq ira i-h eg . 

U, i^ i- U S-, u 

O O O O O o 



O "^ 00 rH "^ 

,-t n ^ -^ <^ 
(M CO ■<»< 



m 


o 


H 


^ 







H 




a 




yA 




o 




a 




fa 




o 


en 




CD 

o bfl 


<5 


oo :z; 




■-1 o 


o 




Z 





t- t- 00 <M . 



U ^ i- '^ ^ s- 

o o o o o o 



# 



4) LQ O 'i- C- 



S-, U. i. ^ 



^ 



O O O O O o 



1-1 C5 rj- C— iXi 
^ ITS O) t^ 1— I 



CO o ^ c^ 



7 bD 

O i^ rt 05 «* l- 

^ ^H C^ lO O c— 

00 O T- th 



^ 



;:; t- 'm t- ^H t, t. 
^ o o o o o o 



u5 _; oq ir5 00 t~ 



re tfi -I- +J 02 

OJ -^ I ^'l' 03 C 

g; §1- !?fMp 



m 
-a 

'S 



oo ^ 



1 c^ 




a 


V 




m 





cC 


0) 

4-> 




bB S^ D 




m 




W <p tt) 


(p 


o 


'r/l 


0) .- I 









^SHF^PhP p 



23 

Now we will look at the subject from the point of view of proportions, 
the tables being based upon the references already given: 

TABLE "K"— COLLEGES TO EDUCABLE POPULATION. 

(See Table "K" on following page.) 

Here we see that the South of 1840, with less than one-fourth of the edu- 
cable population of the whole country, had 32.37 per cent, of the colleges of 
the whole country, or one college to every 61,255 of her educable population, 
A'hile New England had one college to every 117,621 of her educable popula- 
tion, and the United States had one college to every 84,250 of her educable 
population; also that in 1850, the United States had one college to every 
85,413 of its population, and New England had one to every 136,406, while 
the South had one to every 55,119; further, that in 1860, while the United 
States had one college for every 58,695 of its educable population, and New 
England had one for every 149,295, yet the South had one for every 28,763: 
and that in 1900, the United States had one college for every 64,575 of its 
educable population, and New England had one for every 76,603, while the 
South had one for every 59,684. 

It will be seen that in the first decade (1840-1850), while the United 
States so increased the number of its colleges that it increased the ratio 
of colleges to its educable population from 84,250 to 85,413, or 1,163 points, 
and New England increased its ratio from 117,621 to 136,406, or 18,785 
points, yet the South decreased its ratio from 61,255 to 55,119, or 6,136 
points; so also between 1850 and 1860. while the United States decreased 
its ratio from 85,413 to 58,695, or 26,718 points, and New England increased 
its ratio from 136,406 to 149.295, or 12,889 points, yet the South decreased 
its ratio from 55,119 to 28,763, or 26,356 points. 

In the period from 1840-1860, the United States decreased its ratio from 
84,250 to 58,695, or 25,555 points, and New England increased its ratio from 
117,621 to 149,295, or 31,674, yiet the "intellectually dead" and "densely ig- 
norant" South, "at the opening of the war," decreased its ratio from 61,255 
to 28,763, or 32,492. 

Furthermore, we see that the South in 1840, 1850 and 1860 had more 
colleges for its educable population than any other section and than the 
country as a whole at those dates, and more than the country as a whole 
in 1900; in other words, the South of 1840 was more than sixty years ahead 
of its time in the matter of furnishing colleges for the higher education of 
her educable pop,ulation. 

Inasmuch as the different sections of the country excelled in schools 
best adapted to their several characteristics — as the South had a smaller 
percentage of public schools, the lack of which was supplied by the tutor, 
the governess and the "home-school," but greatly excelled in the institu- 
tions of higher education — it seems that we shall get better results if we 
group the public schools, the academies and. the colleges in a grand toital 
as "educational institutions," and then analyze the situation. As usual, we 
use Table "D" for the increase of educable po]iulation, while Table "L" is 
based on the references given above; 



"^ Tfi oi CM e<i CO 

q. lS I- <0 to -« 



^ c<i oo ev! OS 5o 1^ 
e^ CO T-H 0> t^ C<I ITS 



K 



;0 03 0> CD S^ 

O o la T— CD 05 

*^ -*l LO 1— Ol L-^ 

>H to cq^ in cq "^ 

CO t-H in ^ l^ 



_ CO lO Td- CO t- £^1 in 

OoOOOOtDlO'^ L-- 

■^-' to •* to C5 CO ^ "0 

^HtDi— IO)i-HI>^"^ "^ 

t- CO lo to ■^ '^ to 



1> (M in 00 L- 



™ CO O T^- CO i-H O' 
'I' L-^ T-H CO '^ to '^•' 

in; c<i CO '* 



^ 












o 












1— 1 




r^ 


to 


t^ ^ t^ 


C-1 


H 




o 




o in 35 


a. 


-< 




■^ 


>-; 


^ to i-O 


L- 




o 


r3 


CO 


>o' rf t-" 


'X 




uo 




O] 


C-1 lO XI 


L^ 


o 


■Xi 


o 




in <* O 

to' ^ to 




Hi 












w 












J 


























^ 


t^l>^^ 




D 




3 


CO 


o r^ in 








05 


05 CO C- 




Q 




«t-( 








H 




o 


O 


CO C\J l- 

c^ CO o] 





5 t- m in c<i T-H '-; 

O rH t^ <o to m ^J^ 

•_;^ o T-H rj- ^ t-- c-^ 

o 03 c^' to <^ ctT CO <^' 

CT3 ■;; Oi o CO in CO. o 
^ pLn'-<_o>i:-c/DCO 

B* in t-^ ^ C-- c^f '"' 



1> S^- v^ vO - 



'« 














w 


























^ 


o 


in 


C^l 


o 


n 


o 


lO 


in 




1— 1 




to 


M< 


CM 


o 




( ) 


^_j 


i-~ 


o 


T— 


T— 1 








'-' 


o 


<o 


'CO 





in oo CO -*< 00 

O 02 l^ «0 I-H T-l 

+^ C<] to h«- C- T-l 

,-^ 05 oT 00 in e<r 

^ CO CM in CO 



^jlj J5 O CO 'X) 



r- 05 (X/ CO CO 

p:! oi CJ^ (D o 

.S t- s^i CM in 

li ■* o o o 

^ CO 'M CO 05 

2 c^ o rh oo 

a oi in CO CO 

o 



3 m a> 



:> -3 Ml ■" .t: tn 

<U •-: I iS cti C 
:^ S ^ ^ ^ p 



<— I (N O eg CO o 

05 Ol 00 in 00 ,H 
i-H 03 O CO 00 t^ 



r- 1— i eg in GO in 

a CO CO in ctT 



a; 



tn 



H ii «> t; 2 '^ 

;- ^J tC CO 

o* — ' X V ci ^ 

^ §H P^ ^ P 



0) 



25 

TABLE "L"— INCREASE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. 

(See Table "L" on following page.) 

From Tables "D" and "L" it will be seen that, while the United States had 
an increase of 72.4 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 
37.1 per cent, of educable population between 1840 and 1850, and New Eng- 
land had an increase of 13.8 per cent, of educational institutions for an 
increase of 22.1 per cent, of educable population, y^et the South had an in- 
crease of 123.7 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 30.2 
per cent, of educable population during that period; that between 1850 and 
1860, v.'hile the United States had an increase of 32.1 per cent, of educational 
institutions for an increase of 37.1 per cent, of population, and New Eng- 
land had an inci'ease of 5.3 of educational institutions for an increase of 
14.9 of population, yet the South had an increase of 32.1 of educational in- 
stitutions for an increase of 24.9 of population; and also that between the 
years 18G0 and 1900, while the United States had an increase of 116.6 per 
cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 172.1 per cent, of popu- 
lation, and New England had a decrease of 9.9 per cent, of educational in- 
stitutions for an increase of 78.4 per cent, of poi)ulation. yet the battle- 
scarred, wrecked, "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South had 
an increase of 219.5 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase of 
257.3 per cent, of educable population — the freeing of the slaves making this 
increase greatly abnormal. 

We also note that at the close of the two decades ending 1860, while the 
United States had an increase of 107.9 per cent, of educational institutions 
for an increase of 88. 1 per cent, of educable population, and New England 
had an increase of 19.8 per cent, of educational institutions for an increase 
of 40.3 per cent, of educable population, yet the "intellectually dead" and 
"densely ignorant" South, just "at the opening of the war" (quoting our 
"Prize Essay") had an increase of 195.4 per cent, of educational institutions 
for an increase of 62.7 per cent, of educable population. 

We will now look to the proportions for educational institutions, which 
are based upon the references already given: 



CO 1-- ■r- <jo O 






O 


O 


1. 

O 


o 


o 


CO 


OS 

oo 

CD 


o 


CO 
CO 


I— 

CO 

o 




>-< 


in 


CT5 


"-< 



S- !-. t. !-. t, 

o o o o o 

en (M [— 05 lO 

«0 LO to o o 

t-^ CO to C- T— I 

<M CO pr) co" T-T 



0} 

o 

H 

Eh 
r-i 

O 

u 
Q 

o 
<: 



t- C^ O) rH '-'5 

•* "^ m <xi <^ 

t^ 02 (O t^ I— I 

«o «=" Cf ci" --^ 

th =^ e\l ^ 



L^ t^ C^ 05 ^H lO 

Tf m Lo <o o 

^- r- o: (£> t^ ,-1 

H^^ (£ a <^-' rA 
rH CM ey| ■* 



00 00 f^ i>0 



t< M t. t. f ;^ 

o o o o o o 

<M oo Ol rH oo 

CO tJD ^ Ol O 

05 CD <0 CO 

^ CD 00 S^' 



Q 

05 1-1 in 05 oo 

Oi T-H CJ) CD cr:' 



1 ^ 



t- -^ :^ j^ i^ U 

O O O O O O 



OS CO <JD CO CD to 

lO Ol fO ■* OS o 

CD CD CO i-H CO '*' 

1— i lO lO CO' 00 CO 



O CO CO CO 00 

"H CD ^ 1-- CD 

OS oa lo OO 

lo no in o' 



S w 



CO LO lO Tf ^H ITS 

CO "rt< O) O O O 

O CD W OS lO ■^ 

LO CM in l-^ 0-. co' 

1— I OO 1^ o 



fl CO O 'i- CM 

o ^ t- o o> »tO 

■^ OS CD O^ O 

^ _; co" oo' to tA 



OJ 
r^ tn -I- +j CO 

^^ M o r- M F 

K, 'O III *-' _ M 

OJ ■- I jj CS = 

^ ^1- tS CM P 



C I' ^ 

»-• +j ^ TO 

■^ 5 D 0} 



r^ "*^ * 



4: 0/ 
2 UJ "S 



tn CO 

2^ o * 

^^ .- I ^ ?^ c 

^ §1- !^ CLh ;^ 



27 

TABLE "M"— EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIOxVS TO EDUCABLE POPULA- 
TION. 

(See Table "M" on following page.) 

Here we find that the South of 1840, with less than one-fourth of the 
educable population of the whole country, had 13.82 per .cent, of the edu- 
cational institutions of the whole country, or one institution for every 490 
of her educable population, while the United States had one institution 
for every 288 and New England had one institution for every 160; also 
that in 1850, the United States had one for every 229, and New Englano 
had one for every 171, while the South had one for every 285; further- 
more, that in 18C0 the United States had one for every 238, and New Eng- 
land had one for every 187, while the South had one for every 270; and 
that in 1900, the United States had one for every 299, and New England 
had one for every 371, while the South had one for every 262. 

It will be seen further that, in the first decade (1840-1850), while the 
United States so increased the number of its educational institutions that 
it reduced its ratio of educational institutions to educable population 
from 288 to 229, or 59 points, and New England increased its ratio from 
160 to 171, or 11 points, yet the South decreased its ratio from 490 to 285, 
or 205 points; also that, between the years 1850 and 1860, the United States 
increased its ratio from 229 to 238, or 9 points, and New England increased 
its ratio from 171 to 187, or 16 points, while the South decreased its ratio 
from 285 to 270, or 15 points. 

Upon an examination of the data for the four decades ending 1900, we 
see that, the United States increased its ratio from 238 to 299, or 61 points, 
and New England increased its ratio from 187 to 371, or 184 points, while 
the wrecked and poverty-stricken South decreased its ratio from 270 to 
262, or 8 points, in spite of the abnormal increase in educable population 
caused by the freeing of the slaves. 

The next item is the two decades from 1840-1860. Here we see that, the 
United States decreased its ratio from 288 to 238, or 50 points, and New 
England increased its ratio from 160 to 187, or 17 points, yet this same 
"intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" South "at the opening of the 
war," decreased its ratio from 490 to 270, or 220 points. 

Furthermore, we see that the South of 1850 had one educational institu- 
tion to every 285 of her educable population, and in 1860 one to every 
270. while the United States in 1900 had one to every 299. In other words, 
the South of 1850 and 1860 had made better provision in the matter of fur- 
nishing educational institutions for its educable population than the United 
States had made in 1900, and so was better off in this respect in 1850 and 1860 
than the United States was in 1900. 

AND Now^ TO SUMMARIZE— The South of 1860 was more than thirty years 
ahead of its time so far as supplying churches for its population was con- 
cerned. The South of 1860 was substantially as well off in the matter 
of supplying public schools to its educable population as the United States 



fO lO CO tH oo 

c<i Oi 0> 00 o 

00 00 1^ -* 



XI lO o ^ 
LO 00 o C>1 
■^^ CM '^J ^ 



P ■* CM t- rf 



"S O CV3 CO CO C« 

2 -I CD >* t- =0 

lo' ira in o 

_; T-H CM T- CO 



^ C^ r— t~™ CM 

i-H O LO <^ ^ 

i-H "<^ ID LO t^ 

oo oo ^ c^ oo 

CM (M (D 00 l^ 

l^ LO 'J- O "-t 

cm" -J? ^ 5i5 



m in -*> ^ 

Tf o> o o 
^ 0> c- ij:: 



o^ vO ve sij 



^ ic m CM ,-1 1— I 

jr t~ to tc ir; uo 

~ ^ »* ■* c- c- 

g? <o rf en oc* cm" 

J^ O PO LO Oj o 

1 i-H O)^ t- oc CO 

^ t-" OT t- cm" -r^ 



>„ o> CO CJ3 «r> 

g CO O) r-l 02 



^ 



o o O cm 
CD c— cy> Lo 

i-l CM >^ CO 



X) O -<}• f>] 
t^ O O lC 

CT. CD O) O 



l^ CM O T— I liO 

•^ LO lO CD O 

t^ era CO i^ r-i 

CD CD O ctT rt" 

i-H CM CM ■^ ,-1 



O +^ 

■* c3 

GO •- 
rH 3 

a 
o 



Ci OO CO 00 

cn 35 <3> o 

l^ CM CM lO 

V o O o 

CO >.M CO 03 

CM O ^ iO 

cm" ic CO 



^ §1- ^ ClH P 






O CC 



t— I CM O C^l CO o 

oi 05 CO i;7t cc th 

^^ Oi o>^ 00 CC> l^ 

LO O O CD oo" Co" 

CO -^ h«- Oi T-H tT 

tH CM lO oc lO 

CO OO in 05 



13 » I ^ 



;: oj 



<U "- I ►? Cd i=i 



29 

was in 1900. The South of 1S40 was more than sixty years ahead of its 
time so far as supplying academies for its educable population was con- 
cerned. The South of 1840 was more than sixty years ahead of its time 
so far as supplying colleges for its educable population was concerned. 
The South of 1850 and 1860 had made better provision of educational in- 
stitutions for its educable population than the United States had made in 
1900. And finally it will be noted that in substantially all of these decades 
the progress of the South in the matter of furnishing religious and educa- 
tional institutions to its people was greater and more rapid (the increase 
of population considered) than that of the country as a whole or of any 
of the settled sections of it. 

This is the condition of affairs that Miss Boyson and her learned judges 
were undertaking to describe when she said: 

"The great religious and educational movements ***** 
******* SWEPT BY THEM UNHEEDED." 

In view of these developments, one cannot but wonder whether Miss 
Boyson and her learned judges knew that DeBow's Review flourished in 
the South from 1846 to 1861, being revived elsewhere after the war, 
whether they ever heard of The Southern Literary Messenger, which ran 
from 1834 to 1864. An "intellectually dead" and "densely ignorant" peo- 
ple would hardly have supported these. 

The following are some of the products of this "intellectually dead" and 
"densely ignorant" race: 

Presidents — Harrison (William H.), Andrew Jackson, Jefferson, Andrew 
Johnson, Madison, Monroe, Polk, Taylor, Tyler and Washington. 

Statesmen — The above and Calhoun, Clay, Jefferson Davis, the two Gads- 
den, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Marshall (jurist). Mason, Edmund 
Randolph, John Randolph, Peyton Randolph and Alexander H. Stephens. 

Soldiers and Sailors — Beauregard, George Rogers Clark, "Bob" Evans, Far- 
ragut (Federal Navy), Forest, Sam Houston, Jackson, Albert Sidney John- 
ston, Joseph E. Johnston, Lee. Morgan, Wingfield Scott (U. S. Army) 
Admiral Semmos and George H. Thomas (Federal Army). 

Literature and Journalism. — DeBow, Gildersleeve (scholar), Ge'^sner Harri- 
son (scholar), Paul Hamilton Hayne, James Barron Hope, Sidney Lanier, 
John B. Minor (in law). Poe, Father Ryan, Benjamin Symms (in education), 
John R. Thompson, Tieknor and Henry Timrod. 

Explorers — William Clark and Meriwether Lewis. 

Science — Audubon, DeBow (in Economics). Gatling, LeConte (in geology), 
Long (in anasthesia), Maury, McCormick, Ambrose Dudley Mann (in trans- 
portation), Rogers (in natural philosophy), Ruffln (in scientific agriculture), 
Sims (in surgery), and John Taylor of Virginia and James Mercer Garnett 
(in rural philosophy).* 

Such were the people whom the essayist (an educator) and her judges 
(all of them educators and two of them distinguished Southern educators) 
have unhesitatingly and unqualifiedly branded as "densely ignorant," and 
"intellectuallv dead." 



*Acknowledgment is hereby made to the Manufacturer's Record, of Balti- 
more, for having drawn lilierally upon the list apiaearing in its issue of Feb- 
ruary 18, 1909, p. 47, where it deals with the same essay. 



30 



If our essayist and her learned and discriminating educator-judges have 
thus branded the South "at the opening of the war," what words have 
they held in reserve to describe the religious and educational conditions 
of these enlightened United States of America in the year of grace 1900? 

As the "parallel" would be awkward to handle here, we are simply giving 
a series of quotations which utterly refute the "intellectually dead" quo- 
tation from the Boyson Essay. The Committee of Judges (the identical 
men) awarded the U. D. C. Prize of 1907 (the year before the Boyson 
Essay) to the essay of Prof. Herbert T. Coleman, entitled "The Status of 
Education in the South Prior to the War Between the States," which ap- 
peared in the Confederate Veteran of October, 1907, pp. 441-7, from which 
publication we make the following quotations:* 

"Such differences as existed in the educational methods of the North and 
South were largely a matter of emphasis, the South paying relatively more 
attention to higher education and overlooking for a longer period than did 
many of the Northern States the important educational work which the in- 
( Black ours.) 

dividual commonwealth might legitimately and advantageously undertake." 
******** 

"The South was clearly the pioneer in the matter of establishing Stace 
universities and in providing for their support from the public domain. Of 
the six institutions of this class founded before 1830, the South furnished 
five — the University of Georgia, established in 1785; the University of North 
Carolina, established in 1789; the University of Tennessee, established in 1794; 
the University of South Carolina, established in 1801; and the University of 
Virginia, established in 1819." 

******** 

"The South was, however, on the whole far from niggardly in the support 
or her State institutions." 

******** 

"A third distinguishing characteristic was the liberal character of the course 
of study in the State institutions." 

******** 

"The various religious denominations in the South were far from inactive 
in the field of higher education during the first half of the nineteenth cen- 
tury." (Black ours.) 

******** 

"Before leaving this general division of the subject, however, a brief men- 
tion s'hould be made of the strong tendency among the wealthy families of 
the South to send their sons abroad for their college education." 

******** 

"So strongly was university education rooted in Southern sentiment and 
practice that we find the Southern system of education mentioned by South- 
ern writers as the university system as distinguished from the public school 
system which prevailed in the North. Some interesting statistics are given 
in DeBow's Review, in an article on "College Education North and South;" 
while during the fifties Maine could boast of one college student in 2,083 of 
population; New Hampshire, one in 1,162; Massachusetts, one in 994; Rhode 
Island, one in 955; Connecticut, one in 441; Vermont, one in 684; or an ave- 
rage for the New England States of one in 916. Virginia possessed one col- 



*These seemingly too long quotations are necessary in order not to place 
Miss Boyson and her judges in an unfair light, which might result if 
short ones were made without connection or bearing. 



31 

leg-e student for every 666 of population; North Carolina, one for every 1,078; 
South Carolina, one for every 381; and Georgia, one for every 389; or a total 
average for the four oldest Southern States of one for every 545 of popu- 
lation. While these figures were used as weapons in a bitter controversy 
which has now happily given away before a feeling of mutual respect and 
an attitude of mutual helpfulness, they forcibly illustrate the position which 
the South has always maintained in reference to university education." 
(Black ours.) 

* ::; ♦ * * * * * 

"A further analysis of the census returns mentioned shows the proportion 
of academy students to the population in the twelve following States to be 
as follows: Virginia, one in 98; North Carolina, one in 60; South Carolina, 
one in 36; Georgia, one in 57; Florida, one in 37; Alabama, one in 51; Lou- 
isiana, one in 47; Texas, one in 45; Mississippi, one in 44; Tennessee, one in 
76; Kentucky, one in 59; Arkansas, one in 67. The total average for these 
States is one in 61, while the average for the eix New England States is 
one in 65, and that of the remaining States of the Union (including New 
England) is one in 70. These statistics tend to reinforce statements already 
made and show that in the first half of the nineteenth century education, 
apart from the purely elementary phase of it, was fully as highly regulated 
in the Southern States as in the sister States of the North." (Black ourti'. ) 
******** 

"It would seem that in the field of secondary education the place of honor 
belonged to the private academies. Many of them were in the hands of men 
of high scholarship, devoted to their work and possessing singular gifts in 
inspiring the youth with high intellectual and moral ideals." (Black ours.) 
******** 

"In regard to the character of these schools [ladies' schools], one writer 
has remarked: "The public sentiment did not favor schools of advanced grade 
for women. Reared in luxury and among a chivalric people, women received 
the most unbounded honor and even adulation. The bearing of men toward 
them was almost as extravagant as in mediaeval days. Their education was 
confined to the acquirement of certain accomplishments, such as music, paint- 
ing, wax-working, and fancy needle-work.' " 

******** 

"As early as the seventeenth century we find the philanthropic motive active 
in Virginia. In 1636 a school was opened in Elizabeth City county as the 
result of a bequest from Benjamin Symms of two hundred acres of land and 
eight cows. Some forty years later (1675) a school was founded in New- 
port county by Henry Peasley, 'who endowed it with six hundred acres', ten 
cows and a breeding mare' "* 



*While both do not come under the head of philanthropy, as set forth in 
Prof. Coleman's essay, it might not be out of place to mention the fact that 
the Virginia Company made provision for the establishment of a college or 
university at Henrico (near present Dutch Gap, Va.) as early as 1618 (See 
Neill's Virginia Company of London, 117, 137, 139. 147, 150, 152, 156, 184, 329; 
Records of the Virginia Company (Library of Congress), I, 220, 349; Stith's 
Virginia, 165), but it was al)andoned on account of the massacre of 1622; 
also that Palmer projected and provided for a University of Virginia (Aca- 
demia Virginiensis et Oxoniensis) in 1624, the institution to be located on 
Palmer's Island in the Susquehanna River, but, as is well known, the move 
came to nothing. (See Water's Gleanings, II. 982-3; Virginia Magazine of 
History and Biography, XV, 304;Neill's Virginia Vetusta. 1S2-3; Neill's Vir- 
ginia Carolorum, 27, 114; Neill's London Company of Virginia, 197, — M. P. R.) 



32 

"In fact, the private tutor has always been an nnportant educational factor 
in the South, the isolation of many families_ and the general unwillingness to 
patronize the free schools, on account of the feeling that they were charity 
institutions, leading to this." 

"The public school systems of the South as they exist at the present time 
have grown up since the war between the States. There have, however, been 
in the South almost from the earliest times far-sighted statesmen who have 
held firmly to the belief that the duty of the State in this regard was a large 
and imperative one. Among these, the first in importance, if not in time, 
was Thomas Jefferson. As early as 1779 he introduced into the Virginia 
Assembly a bill providing for the foundation of common schools for all free 
children, both male and female." (Black our;?.) 

"When we turn to a consideration of the financial provision for the sup- 
port of public elementary education in the various States of the South, we 
find on the whole a commendable liberality." 

"All these grants of State money — large considering the time and consider- 
ing also the total wealth of the Commonwealths by which they were made — 
brought, however, inadequate and unsatisfactory^ results. Southern thinkers 
and writers were among the first to realize this fact and seek to determine 
its cause." 

"A further fact which should not be overlooked is that in the life of the 
farm and the frontier the mastery of the rudiments of book learning was not 
held in as high esteem as the ability to handle the axe and the plow. Such 
a life might lead to a high percentage of illiteracy in the State, but it cer- 
tainly would not prevent the development of a high degree of intelligence." 

* * :|: * * * * * 

"There were not wanting, however, signs of an awakening to the needs of 
the situation. Prom 1850 onward serious efforts were made to remove the 
opprobrium .which attached to the public school as an institvition; and had 
it not been for the war between the States, which directed State and indi- 
vidual energies into other channels, the movement would doubtless in another 
decade have transformed the nature of popular education in the South." 

The essay, from which these quotations are made, received the U. D. C. 
Prize in 1907. One year later these same three judges awarded tlie prizfe 
to the Boyson Essay, which appeared in the Confederate Veteran of De- 
cember, 1908, p. 657, in whicli we find the familiar phrase: 

"Intellectually the South was dead, etc." 

It remains for our educator-judges to clear up the inconsistencies and 
to explain how they came to change their minds so radically upon so fun- 
damental an educational fact in so short a while. 

We will now examine other quotations from the Boyson Essay: 

Miss Boyson quotes some rabid phrases from books which appeared im- 
mediately after the war and says: 

"These histories abound in accounts of 'Rebel atrocities' and 'Northern 
patrioti?m,' of 'Yankee ingenuity,' and 'Rebel cunning:' Sout>^ern mistakes are 
instances of 'infatuated ignorance' and a Southern victorj^ always a mys- 
tery. JLee is the arch traitor (Black ours'), and every movement of his army 
is made synonymous with vandalism and lawlessness. (Most of these epi- 



33 

thets are borrowed from 'A History of the Civil War,' by John S. C. Abbott, 
and published in 1S66.)" 

So much for the quotation. The essayist then says, "_A11 such accouiits 
are manifestly prejudiced and exaggerated. Nevertheless they indicate what 
in essence at least was once a widely prevalent attitude. * * * wiien 
such a man could consent to lead in such a cause, there was but one name 
for his conduct." (Italics ours,) Then she continues: 

"It is just here that the new estimate diverges from the old. It maintains 
that Lee's attitude toward the war was inevitable. It goes farther; it insists 
that any other attitude would have been treason to his convictions and to the 
social order of which he was the finest representative." 

In spite of this, we find that further on in this PRESENT Estimate 
this same writer says: 

"He [Lee] was a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his 
country, 'but so were George Washington and John Hampden and William 
of Orange.' (C. F. Adams, in a speech 'Shall Cromwell Have a. Statue?') * * * 
To do now what he [Lee] did then would be treason, for the Civil War has 
since then taught what was right in this regard." (Black ours.) 

But how "treason," if "the matter of secession had purposely been left 
open by the framers of the constitution." (See below. Italics ours.) 

It seems odd that this Present Estimate should revert to the language 
of the old estimates, which our essayist has just described as "manifestly 
prejudiced and exaggerated." The old estimate, so she says, classified Lee 
as the arch traitor. She makes him simply a common, ordinary, every- 
day traitor. It is amusing to note that the 7ieio estimate maintains that 
Lee's attitude toward the war was inevitable, yet this Present Estimate 
says: "To do noio what he did then would be treason, for the (Hvil War 
has since then taught ivhat is right in this regard." (Italics ours.) 

She has just said that his "attitude was inevitable." Poor General Lee! 
Miss Boyson and her learned judges have placed him between the fires. 
They evidently adhere to the doctrine that "might makes right," even if 
two of them are Soutliern. though we can recall no amendment to the 
Constitution to uphold the theory that "the Civil War has since taught 
^ohat is right in this regard." However, the seceding States were re-ad- 
mitted to the Union only after they had incorporated in their constitu- 
tions of the seventies a clause repudiating secession,* the government thus 
inadvertently admitting that they had the right. How could they repu- 
diate a right, unless they had it? 

In order to enable her the more completely to prove General Lee a traitor, 
she calls to her aid Mr. C. F. Adams, who is of the opinion that George 



*Charters and Constitutions, 48, 79, 120, 347, .'!59, 7C9, 1082, 1095, 1124, lir;7, 
1247, 1419, 1436, 1646, ISOl. 1S19, 1836, 1953, 1994. 



34 

Washington, John Hampden and William of Orange were traitors, when 
he was discussing another subject. Mr. Adams' opinion of these gentlemen 
is wholly extraneous, and irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing upon 
the situation. General Lee's case must stand upon its own merits. 

This is silly and weak and was evidently resorted to because she thought 
that no one would object to her calling Lee a traitor, so long as she placed 
Washington in the same category, but, as a matter of fact, she states un- 
qualifiedly that both Lee and Washington were traitors. No "if" about it, 
but "so were George Washington, and John Hampden, and William of 
Orange." 

QUOTATION No. 2. 

"No State," said Mr. Lincoln, "can upon its own mere motion lawfully get 
out of the Union. * * * The Union is unbroken, and, to the extent of my 
ability, I shall tal-ce care * * * that the laws of the Union be faithfully exe- 
cuted in all the States. (Hosmer's 'Appeal to Arms,' p. 15.) The same theme, 
union now and forever, kindled Webster's loftiest eloquence. His opponent 
in that famous controversy of ideals' was the voice of the whole South." 

It is barely possible that the essayist and her judges never read Mr. 
Webster's speech, made at Capon Springs, Va., in June, 1851, during the 
course of which he said: 

"I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat it, that if the Northern States 
refuse, wilfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Con- 
stitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress pro- 
vides no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. 
[Immense applause.] A bargain cannot be broken on one side. I say to you, 
gentlemen, in Virginia, as I said on the shores of Lake Erie, and in the city 
of Boston, and as I may say again in that city or elsewhere in the North, 
that you in the South have as much right to receive your fugitive slaves as 
the North has to any of its rights and privileges of navigation and commerce. 
I desire to be understood here among you, and throughout the whole country, 
that in hopes, thoughts and feelings, I profess to be an American — altogether 
and nothing but an American, and that I am for the Constitution and the 
whole Constitution. [Long and continued cheering.]* (Black ours.) 

QUOTATION NO. 3. 

"In a country where the mass of the people accepted ready-made opinions, 
misceptions carried ideas forward and made false maxims seem working 
principles, so that before 1860 the people in general believed that they had 
a right to secede." (Black ours.) 

Probably no people ever "accepted ready-made principles" less than did 
the people of the South, as may be seen from an examination of the publi- 
cations of the day. 

In regard to the statement "so that before 1860 the people in general 
believed that they had a right to secede," presumably as a result of the 



*Curtis' Life of Webster, Vol. II, p. 519: It is interesting to note that Mr. 
Curtis was an eminent New York lawyer and legal writer, making a specialty 
of constitutional law and the Life of Webster, and that this work was pub- 
lished in 1870. 



35 

above misconceptions and false maxims, we would say that a study of the 
proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, its debates, and the lives 
of those who composed it, will show abundant evidence to the effect that, 
not only was the South's interpretation of 1S60 the same as that of thoso 
who made the Constitution, but also that there would have been no United 
States at that time, had it been otherwise. 

On this point. Gen. Francis A. Walker,* has this to say in his Making of 
the Nation (pp. 29-30.): 

"On the subject of the relations of the several States to the United States, 
there was in the Convention [Constitutional] a great diversity of opinion; 
but, in a general way, three distinct views may be said to have been held. 
First, that the States remained, in spite of all that had been granted to the 
Revolutionary Congress for the sake of carrying on the war and in spite of 
all that had been conceded in the Articles of 17S1, sovereign and independent 
States of undiminished authority and competent at any time to resume the 
entire control of their own interests by simply "denouncing" the Articles of 
Confederation. The second view was that which held that the course of 
events during the Revolution and the grants of power made to the Conti- 
nental Congress and the Confederation of 1781, had established a nation which 
existed of its own right, which had the full constitutional authority, even 
though power were lacking to assert itself against individual States, were 
that necessary. * * * Between these two views which have been described was 
the opinion held, probably with better reason, which may be expressed in the 
language of Eldridge Gerry: 'We were neither the same nation nor different 
nations.' " (Black ours.) 

Further on (p. 2G8), the same author says: 

"It is perfectly true that the Convention of 1787 dodged the vital question 
of nationality. Had the Constitution contained an explicit declaration that, 
in any attempt of nullification or secession, the general government might 
raise the military force of the country, as was done in 1861, that instrument 
would not have had a chance of ratification by the States." (Black ours.) 

On this point. Miss Boyson herself, evidently forgetting the above quo- 
tation, says further on: 

"But the matter of secession had purposely been left open by the framers 
of the Constitution, and in the minds of many sincere people, both North 
and South, it was still a question." (Black ours.) 

QUOTATION No. 4. 

"He was a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, 
'but so were George Washington, John Hampden and William of Orange.' (C. 
F. Adams, in a speech 'Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?')" (Black ours.) 



*Born in Boston; a brigadier- general in the Federal Army; a Federal office- 
holder, and president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology from 1881 
until his death (1897). 



36 

A person can be a traitor either in the technical or in the infamous 
sense. So far as Lee's having been a traitor in the technical sense is con- 
cerned, we have seen that, had any other interpretation than that of Lee 
and the South in 1860 been explicitly declared in the Constitution, "that 
instrument would not have had a chance of ratification by the States." So 
far as his having been a traitor in the infamous sense of the word is 
concerned, such a thing is preposterous and beyond the pale of discussion. 

How a "traitor" if "the matter of secession had purposely been left open 
by the framers of the constitution?" ( Italics ours.) 

QUOTATION No. 5. 

"Before long we shall come to think of Lee as the English have come to 
think of Washing-ton, whom they lately regarded as a rebel; for, indeed, he 
differed from the greater Washington only in choosing the wrong side." 
(Black ours.) 

Before long, then, the essayist and her judges hope to relieve General 
Lee of the odium of being regarded as a rebel. There is but one conclu- 
sion — they at present regard him as a rebel, but prophesy that soon the 
stigma will have been removed. Very good, but how can this come to 
pass, for they say that he chose the "wrong side."? 

But how a "rebel," if the matter of secession had purposely been left open 
by the framers of the constitution?" (Italics ours.) 

QUOTATION No. 6. 

"This justification of Lee's attitude toward the Union may be nottd as 
the first and in some respects the most important aspect of the new- 
estimate of him." (Black ours.) 

This is probably the boldest bit of slieer nerve that the essayist and 
her judges have yet exhibited, for, while many have maintained that se- 
cession was taught at West Point, although a recent article seems to show 
that it was not, yet none will question that General Lee and all who were 
educated at West Point were taught, and sworn to uphold the Constitution 
of the United States, and, according to this same essayist herself, "the mat- 
ter of secession had purposely been left open by the framers of the Consti- 
tution." 

Why, then, should Miss Boyson and her judg'es feel called upon to offer 
any justification for his attitude, when the Constitution of the United States 
and the country's best constitutional . lawyers and the neio estimates of 
Lee have long since relieved them of the task? 

QUOTATION No. 7. 

Since the essayist broaches the subject, it may be well to note the atti- 
tude of the Federal authorities in regard to prisoners of war. 

Although it was a notorious fact that the Confederacy was scarcely able 
to feed its men in the field, yet Secretary of War Stanton's General Order 
No. 207,* dated July 3, 1868, wiped out the cartel for the. exchange of pris- 



*This order, sometimes erroneouusly referred to as General Order NO'. 209, 
is to be found in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series II, 
Vol. 6. (Serial No. 119), p. 78-9. 



37 

oners which had been in effect for nearly a year, because of violations by 
both Federal and Confederate officers. But this attitude is more clearly 
illustrated by General Grant's order (from City Point, Va.) to General But- 
ler,* under date of August 18th, 1864: 

"* * * On the subject of exchange, however, I differ from General Hitch- 
cock. It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, 
but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man 
we hold, when released on parole or otherwise, becomes an active soldier 
against us at once either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system 
of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to flght on 
until the South is exterminated. If we hold those caught, they amount tO' 
no more than dead men. At this particular time to release all rebel prisoners 
would insure Sherman's defeat and would compromise our safety here." 

QUOTATION No. S. 

"He had to struggle with ignorant and inferior assistants who often mis- 
understood his orders and often made his faith in them a cloak for carrying 
out their own designs." 

Upon comparing a list of the general officers of the Confederate Army 
with General Cullum's Biographical Register of the officers and graduates 
of the U. S. Military Academy (1891), we find that of the 309 Brigadier 
Generals, 77 were graduates of West Point; of the 82 Major Generals, 39 
were graduates of West Point; of the 19 Lieutenant Generals, 15 were 
graduates of West Point; of the 7 Generals (full rank), all were graduates 
of West Point, and General Lee, the Commander-in-Chief was a graduate 
and Superintendent of West Point. 

In view of these facts, it seems odd that he should have had to "struggle 
with ignorant and inferior assistants." There must have been something 
radically wrong with West Point that it should have made "ignorant and 
inferior" officers of so many of the Southern cadets who were appointed 
to the Military Academy, for these were General Lee's "assistants." In- 
cidentally, it is an Interesting sidelight to note that General George H. 
Thomas, one of the best "fighting" generals in the Federal Army, was a 
son of the South and a product of the civilization of that day, as were also 
Wingfiekl Scott, and Farragut, but they gave their allegiance as they 
saw it — to the Union. 

QUOTATION No. 9. 

"But it is neither as' the product of a civilization that is passed, nor as 
a commander that Lee will be given a permanent place. F^r neither as the 
exponent of a form of patriotism which the results of tht^ war have made 
treason, nor as the leader of a lost cause could be attract anything but 
fientimental interest." (Black ours.) 

From this, we can but conclude that the essayist and her judges hold 
that the "results" (defeat) made the South's position "treason," BUT had 



'-Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series II, Vol. 7 (Serial 120), 
pp. 606-7. 



38 

the South been victorious, there would have been no treason in her position, 
an odd doctrine of Constitutional law. 

However, in regard to "But it is neither * * * that Lee will be given 
a permanent place." With characteristic abandon, Miss Boyson (a woman) 
and her judges (none of whom "saw service") unhesitatingly throw their 
lay opinions into the balance against the opinions of the trained soldiers of 
the world. Nor do our leducator friends seem to remember that she has 
just said: "Yet^ Lee will go down in history as one of the great generals. 
His skill as a strategist and a tactician, together with his splendid audacity 
is unsurpassed in all history.'^ 

QUOTATION NO. 10. 

"His real worth lies in the spirit of the man himself, the loftiness and 
dignity of his character, the richness of his soul." 

Strangely enough, she is now describing the man who a few lines back 
was "a traitor in that he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, 
but so were George Washington, etc." — "The exponent of a form of pa- 
triotism which the results of the war have made treason." (Italics ours.) 

QUOTATION NO. 11. 

But in the same paragraph with Quotation No. 9, above, we find this: 
"Doubtless his fine presence and genial,* sunny manner cast an irresistible 
spell over all who came into personal contact with him, but for the historian 
of a later day to represent him as a man of stainless virtue is to make 
him ridiculous." (Black ours.) 

What is it that Miss Boyson and her judges know that justifies them in 
saying that it would make General Lee "ridiculous" "to represent him as 
a man of stainless virtue"? This seems to be a fitting climax to this scan- 
dalous libel, to which two Southern educators gave their unqualified ap- 
proval. 

Such is the incongruous collection of contradictions, known as the Boy- 
son Essay, to which three educators, and two of them learned and distin- 
guished Southern educators, awarded the prize offered by the United Daugh- 
ters of the Confederacy for an historical essay. It is said that there were 
several other essays in the contest. It is hard to realize that they could 
have been worse than this one, but If this be so, then there should have 
been no award at all, on the ground that the material offered did not justify 
an award. 

So much for the essay. We will now turn our attention to an analysis of 



*His manner was anything but genial, if Miss Boyson (the teacher of 
English) and her educator-judges have used that word in its generally ac- 
cepted sense. He was almost severely quiet, dignified and reserved in manner. 



39 

ITS DEFENCE. 

The Confederate Veteran of December, 190S, officially published the Boy- 
son Essay. Immediately protests against the award began appearing on all 
sides, but it was not until the Resolutions of Protest by the Richmond 
(Va.) Chapter on January 28th that they "drew fire" from the judges. 

The reply of the Carolina Judge appeared in the Richmond afternoon 
papers of February 3rd, which is the only form in which we have been 
able to secure it, so this must be accepted as a correct copy of his defense. 
However, we are more fortunate in the matter of the reply of the Virginia 
Judge, for after it had appeared in the newspapers, he re-published it, along 
with several favourable editorials, as a broadside, which was distributed 
from his office at Charlottesville, Va., a copy of which was sent to the writer 
(as well as to others) upon request being made for the same. In the 
preparation of this paper, only this broadside has been used for the reply 
of its author, in the hope that chance of error and misunderstanding be 
reduced to a minimum. The deferential, but disappointing, silence of the 
New York Judge prevents us from knowing what his opinion of the essay 
really is. It would be interesting to know whether he upholds his asso- 
ciates or based his award upon something more substantial. 

THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDGE 

regrets that none of the judges was notified of the intention of the Rich- 
mond Chapter to pass its resolutions, says that he examined the four essays 
on the first of June, 1908 "with the utmost care"; protests against fragmen- 
tary quotations and says: 

"Her paper has many statements with which I do not agree. It contains 
not a few crudities of thoug-ht and expression. But in the range of read- 
ing shown in her bibliography, in her use of English, in her ability to weld 
thought with thought and paragraph with paragraph, in her sincerity of 
purpose, in her sense of historic proportion, in her noble admiration of Lee, 
and in the excellence of her style and substance as a whole, her paper 
is incomparably the best of those submitted." (Black ours.) 

All of which may have been the case, yet the fact remains that this com- 
parison with the other three essays submitted is hardly a good recom- 
mendation, judging from how poor they must have been, which seems to 
be conceded by all. The judge declines to accept as his own the historical 
opinions and statements set forth in the essay, yet he did not hesitate to 
, give it the stamp of his approval, without the slightest protest. 

He says: 

"Had the paper attempted to prove or had it even remotely implied that 
Lee or the humblest soldier who followed him was a traitor, I should have 
cast her essay aside as unworthy of further reading." (Black ours'.) 

In spite of the doctrine laid down here, yet he tells us that he voted 
to award the prize to this essay, but it is doubtful if he can find maniy 
close readers of the essay who will agnee with him that it does not ''even 



40 

remotely imply that Lee or the humblest soldier who followed him was 
a traitor," for it says in so many words that "he was a traitor in that 
he sacrificed all to aid the enemies of his country, but so were George 
Washington, John Hampden, and William of Orange." Here is the bold 
and unqualified statement, the saving grace being that he was in good 
company, but certainly that made him none the less a traitor, for it speci- 
fically states that ''so were George Washington and John Hampden and 
William of Orange," only placing Washington, Hampden and William of 
Orange in the same category, thanks to Mr. Adams. Following the conten- 
tion of our Judges, we cannot but conclude that, if a tormented soul went 
to the nether world and there found the three gentlemen named, the climate 
would at once become more temperate. 

THE DEFENCE OF THE VIRGINIA JUDGE. 

He says: 

"It would have been an act of courtesy which I would have greatly ap- 
preciated, if I had been consulted before these resolutions were passed and 
given to the American press." 

Our gallant Virginia Judge forgets himself and intimates that the ladies 
of the Richmond Chapter were lacking in "courtesy," in that they did not 
wait to hear from him before passing their resolutions of protest and giving 
them to the press. As a matter of fact, Mr. Judge, the ladies had read 
enough to satisfy them that the time had come for them to act unless they 
wanted the seal of their approval to remain unquestioned upon the essay, 
"Robert E. Lee — A Present Estimate." They had read the essay in the 
December, 1908, Confederate Veteran and, presuming that their judges had 
read it before awarding the prize, they very naturally concluded that the 
essay conformed to the opinions of these judges so far as the history cov- 
ered was concerned, although it soon developed that the judges repudiated 
the statements of the essay as vehemently as did the Daughters. Had there 
been no protest, you may be sure that we would not have heard one word 
from the judges — they would have been glad enough to keep under cover — 
nor was there any reason why they should speak again, for they had had 
their say. And so the Boyson Essay would have gone out as offlcially en- 
dorsed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, thanks to our learned 
judges. 

Furthermore, why should the Judges have had any objection to giving 
these resolutions of protest to the press, if they were sure of their position? 

QUOTATION NO. 2. 
"I was ill at the time preparing to go abroad, but gave the papers as 
careful attention as I had the strength to give and after doing so voted to 
award the prize to the paper entitled "Robert E. T^ee, — A Present Estimate." 

It will be noted that there is an absence of any statement to the effect 
that he had ever read the paper before voting to award the prize to it. 



41 

QUOTATION NO. 3. 

"Instructions for the award of the prize, if any had ever been sent me, 
were not before my eyes at the time, but I understood that the judges were 
to consider literary merit, structural ability and general thoughtfulness, as 
well as historical iionesty and fairness." (Black ours.) 

If the Judges undertook to award the prize without any instructions on 
the subject — the imputation being that the Daughters -were derelict in the 
matter of furnishing such instructions — then the Judges simply undertoolt 
to do a thing without knowing what they were trying to do. So far a,s 
understanding that literary merit, structural ability, etc., were to be con- 
sidered is concerned, it is an accepted rule in such cases that if the essays 
are so nearly even and historically correct that a choice is well-nigh im- 
possible, then it is proper to look to the "literary merit" and "structural 
ability" (a very euphoneous combination of phraseology, but without bear- 
ing upon this case) to enable the Judges to decide, but this last resort was 
manifestly unnecessary, since the North Carolina Judge says that it was 
"incomparably the best of those submitted," while the chairman of the 
Committee of Judges tells us that this essay "impressed me as pre-eminently 
the best of those submitted." "Why, then, should it have been necessary 
to go outside of the primary essentials of an historical essay, if this essay 
was so vastly superior to all the rest. And it is a significant fact that neith- 
er the essayist, her judges, her admirers, nor any endorsing Chapter has 
had a single word to say in behalf of the history recorded in this historical 
essay. 

QUOTATION NO. 4. 

Again, "Inasmuch as the prize was for an es'say and not a eulogj^ and had 
been establis'hed at the most cosmopolitan American University, where it 
might be competed for by young men and women of all sections and nations, 
I supposed that one would be expected to allow for wide differences in his- 
torical point of view." 

All of which is true enough, but had it occurred to the Chairman of the 
Judges that allowing for "wide differences of historical point of view" 
hardly justifies the granting of an historical prize for distorted history 
or for a lack of history? 

What the Daughters wanted was an historical essay — neither a eulogy, 
nor a random collection of the private opinions of the essayist and her 
learned Judges. 

QUOTATION NO. 5. 

"I did not consider it our duty to exclude any paper which had been sub- 
mitted to us as eligible by the Daughters of the Confederacy, because it did 
not square with our historical point of view and I imagined my own to be 
essentially that of the Daughters, provided the paper was not malignant or 
vituperative, or meanly narrow or manifestly unjust." 

Had it occurred to our honored Chairman that, had the Daughters know- 
ingly submitted to them "malignant, etc," papers, they, the judges, would 



42 

have had less right to reject them on account of this "malignant"? Had our 
Judges suspected that the Daughters had already passed upon the papers 
before they were turned over to them to judge? What did the Judges think 
that they had been invited to act for, unless it were to use their judg- 
ment and discretion in judging the papers submitted to them in the man- 
ner in which historical papers are usually judged? But they undertook to 
make these confessedly erroneous statements and opinions the official posi- 
tion of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. It was supposed that 
these gentlemen would use more discrimination in the matter. They did 
not. That is where the trouble is. 

QUOTATION NO. 6. 

"Neither did I think that by our vote as judge in such a contest, we were to 
be put in the attitude of endorsing every word or opinion of the matter 
any more than a judge of debate, who must often, as a matter of duty, 
award the palm for the side contending for positions not held by the judges." 

Very good, but have these Judges, when acting as judges of debate, been 
in the habit of "awarding the palm" to sides whose contentions were not 
supported by fact, logic or reasoning? Here the Judges ha\e, by giving 
their approval to confessed historical errors of the most glaring kind, 
placed the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the position of officially 
approving their opinions (for such they must be, since they are not histori- 
cal facts), which opinions or facts (whichever you wish to call them) the 
learned Chairman of the Judges immediately repudiates when they appear 
in print and are subjected to criticism. 

QUOTATION NO. 7. 

"I noted here and there sentences which were unwarranted generaliza- 
tions, or which embodied what I thought unsound opinions and if conformity 
with my own thought had been the sole test, I should have blue- 
penciled' them quickly, but I did not expect scientific accuracy or a 
perfect point of view from a youthful collegian, male or female. I saw no 
evidence of unworthiness of mind or purpose, but rather nn illustration of 
how ;i young person, nourished on a certain brand of text-books, bred in 
another atmosphere of feeling and thinking, expresses herself in transition to 
a larger and juster point of view, and I thought that the ultimate purpose 
of the prize after all was to bring about such transition in such persons 
in the noblest possible way — that is through self-enlightenment. 

I 

He noted that it contained sentences which he thought embodied "un- 
sound opinions," yet he gave it his hearty approval without the first sign 
of protest. 

QUOTATION NO. 8. 

"If it \vere not the purpose for the establishment of this prize in a North- 
ern College by the Daughters of the Confederacy, what possible purpose could 
the Daughters have had? Under the circumstances, is it conceivable that a 
failure to conform to their views should operate as a total disqualification of 
this paper?" 



43 

In the quotations above, the thought of disqualification seems never to 
have occurred to the Judges. In view of this analysis, one may well ques- 
tion the wisdom of the establishment of the prize at all; however, it seems 
pertinent to suggest that, irrespective of the point of view, the lacli of Ms- 
tory is usually accepted as a fairly good reason for the disqualification 
of an liistorical essay. After this experience, one might not be surprised 
to hear that the Daughters of the Confederacy question the wisdom of the 
establishment of the prize. 

QUOTATION NO. 9. 

"If I had thought for one moment that this young- woman meant to set 
up and defend the thesis that Robert E. Lee was a traitor, I should have 
characterized her paper as too malignant and too narrow tor our considera- 
tion in a prize essay in such a competition at such a time as this." 

Although the essayist opens her paper by disavowing any purpose to call 
Lee the "arch traitor," and leads us to believe that she is going to treat 
the subject in an unprecedentedly liberal-minded manner, yet she cannot 
control herself and says: "He was a traitor in that he sacrificed all to 
aid the enemies of his country, but so were George Washington, .lohn Hamp- 
den and William of Orange." * * * "To do now what he did then 
would be treason, for the Civil War has since taught what was right in this 
regard." * * * "Before long we shall come to look upon Lee as the 
English have come to look upon Washington, whom they lately regarded 
as a rehel: for, indeed, he differed from the greater Washintgon in that 
he chose the icrong side." 

* * * "For neither as the exponent of a form of patriotism which 
the results of the war have made treason, nor as the leader of a lost cause 
could he attract anything but sentimental interest." 

It would be interesting to know what dictionary our distinguished Judge 
uses, and, if the essayist and her judges can get anything but traitor and 
treason out of these passages, at the same time maintaining the integrity 
of the English Language, they will be able to accomplish a good deal 
more than the customary usage of that language permits and more than 
their apologists have been able to accomplish for them. 

QUOTATION NO. 10. 

"Nowhere in this essay, in my judgment, can any fair interpretation dis- 
cover a purpose to claim, or a statement to the effect that Robert E. Lee 
was a traitor in any odious sense. It is an axiom of interpretation, that it 
is fundamentally unfair and productive of wrong conclusions to judge of any 
literary production, by detached sentences taken from it. and even more un- 
just and confusing to cut in twain the sentences thus detached." 



44 

QUOTATION NO. 11. 

"She, like Adams, is trj-ing to reduce to an absurdity any contention of a 
mere technicalist or literalist, that I^ee was a traitor by saying that he 
was no more of a traitor than George Washington, John Hampden or Wil- 
liam of Orange. The deduction is plain. If Lee and Washington and Hamp- 
den and William of Orange were traitors, then treason ^heds its ancient 
odium and shines forth as a thing glorious and we may all well strive to 
grow into the statue of traitors. This, at least, is my understanding of her 
purpose. As a matter of personal belief, I do not agree with Mr. Adams that 
Lee or any other Southern man was by the baldest technicality of defini- 
tion a traitor." (Black ours.) 

A moment ago, Mr. Judge, you agreed Avith Mr. Adams that Lee was a 
traitor, but "so were George Washington and Hampden and William of 
Orange" and consequently he was in good company; now you say that 
you "do not agree with Mr. Adams that Lee or any oth'er Southern man 
was by the haldest technicality a traitor." How now? Above in the tenth 
quotation from your reply, you say that you cannot "discover a purpose 
to claim, or a statement to the effect that Robert E. Lee was a traitor in 
any odious sense." Here you say that you do not agree "that Lee or any 
oth'er Southern man was by the haldes't technicality of definition a traitor." 
We know of but these two kinds of traitor, the infamous and the technical. 
The essay unquestionably contains that word attributed to General Lee. 
You deny that he was a traitor in either the infamous or the technical 
sense. What kind of a traitor, then, is it that this essay calls General Lee? 
(Italics ours). 

QUOTATION NO. 12. 

"Miss Boyson's use of the phrase 'wrong side' at the end of the first 
paragraph quoted and 'the Civil War has since taught what was right in 
this regard,' in the same paragraph were infelicitous and jarring, but I 
came to the conclusion that she meant 'unsuccessful' in the one and in 
the other 'forever settled.' " 

This would appear a queer and rather strained interpretation of the 
language, when we remember the elaborate use of the words "traitor," 
"rebel" and "treason" in connection with General Lee. These along with 
the "wrong side," could hardly be interpreted as "unsuccessful" without 
distorting the language. 

Here, then, we see that this essay is given unqualified approval, although 
the Chairman of the Judges concedes that the quotations under considera- 
tion are open to almost any interpretation from "wrong side" to "unsuc- 
cessful," from treason to "forever settled." SHOULD SO WIDE A SCOPE 
OP INTERPRETATION HAVE RECEIVED THE STAMP OP UNQUALI- 
FIED APPROVAL? It would hardly be a safe historical guide foi an 
undiscriminating student of history. 



45 



QUOTATION NO. IS. 

"And so I might go on quoting a hundred detached sentences of noble 
praise of Lee and the South, with here and there a sentence of criticism, 
not s'o much of General Lee, for I find no essential criticism of him, but 
rather of the conditions under which he worked." 

Not so, for the Judges themselves have already placed the ban upon d'e- 
tached sentences. HoM'ever, since he has suggested it, we might offer a few 
sentences of "noble praise of Lee and the South," e. g. "Intellectually the 
South was practically dead," "he was a traitor in that he sacrificed," etc., 
"To do now what he did then would be treason," etc. 

QUOTATION NO. 11. 

"Some of her critical opinions were inexact and irritating, but never to 
my thinking abusive or malicious. For instance, the assertion that most of 
the people of the South were densely ignorant was a foolish echo of an 
erroneous view current at one time in her section and in many Northern 
minds, based upon unanalyzed statistics of illiteracy, and the added state- 
ment that the South was intellectually dead, derived from the same mis'- 
understanding, was as offensive to me as to my critics. But I do not think 
that such misstatements disqualified the paper." (Black ours.) 

Explanations why the essayist was laboring under these delusions about 
conditions in the South are wholly irrelevant. If she still retained such 
ideas, granted by the Judge to be an erroneous view, it would not seem, 
that her study of conditions in the South had sufficiently enlightened her 
upon the subject to justify the award of the prize to her, when it is known 
that the purpose of the prize was to encourage teachers to become familiar 
with these conditions. 

It would be interesting to have a sample of what in our worthy Judge's 
opinion would justify the disqualification of an historical essay. 

As to its "literary merit" and "structural ability": 

Dr. Johnson says in the Preface to Latham's Edition of Shakespeiare, 
"He has outlived his century, the term commonly fixed as the test of lite- 
rary merit:' Does our Judge pretend to say that this essay would even 
ever have been heard of, had it not been for the protests called forth by its 
glaring inaccuracies, much the less "outlived its century"? 

So far as "structural ability" is concerned, it has been difficult to find 
any statement or opinion in the essay, except "intellectually the South was 
practically dead," etc., which is not contradicted by a statement or opinion 
in another part of it. Even General Lee to whom is applied the term 
"traitor" is a person, whose "real worth lies in the spirit of the man 
himself, the loftiness and dignity of his character, the richness of his 
soul," yet in the very same paragraph she says "but for the historian of a 
later day to represent him as a man of stainless character is to viake him^ 
ridiculous:' Wonder what she really does think of General Lee? Refer- 
ence to quotations No. 1-11 from the essay, above, will illustrate its con- 
spicuous lack of coherence and structural abilitv. 



46 

A manufacturing firm offers a prize of $100 for the best formula of 
making paste. Many are submitted and the prize is awarded to one be- 
cause it had "literary merit" and "structural ability." BUT THE PASTE 
WON'T STICK. Should there have been any award? Why not? For the 
elementary reason that the product lacks the fundamental, essential and 
basic quality of STICKING, and it is a well-known and accepted fact that 
paste, if worth anything, STICKS. For that reason, it was not deemed neces- 
sary to tell the judges that the paste to be made from the prize formula 
was expected to stick. So also, in this contest, it was presumed that it' 
would not be necessary to impress upon our judges that an historical essay, 
to be worth anything, should contain HISTORY. 

Again, when a student takes an examination on history and hands in a 
paper, say, with the clearness of Swift, the force of Dante, the elegance 
of Addison, the literary merit of Shakespeare and the structural ability 
of the logicians, but is LACKING IN CORRECT HISTORY, does any oniB 
pretend to say that this student is entitled to a "pass" on history? 

Then finally: When an educational institution engages a Professor of 
History, does the head of that institution feel that he should go and tell 
this new Professor of History that he is expected to teach History, and 
not English Literature — not synthetical chemistry? 

Some have argued that the Judges should have made a qualified award, 
pointing out the errors and other items to which they excepted, instead 
of making an unqualified award on the flimsy pretext of alleged literary 
merit and supposed structural ability. Result of this; Boyson Essay gets 
the prize just the same, although it be devoid of history. However, their 
exceptions would probably reject the better portion of the essay. 

On this point, the Historian-General of the Daughters is of the opinion 
that no award should have been made at all, if the prize essay was the 
best of those submitted — all of the papers submitted being disqualified on 
the ground of lack of history: but that, so long as the award was made, 
Miss Boyson had a legal and a moral right to the prize of $100, and it was 
the right and proper thing for the Daughters to pay it. 

As a collection of pleasing platitudes and disconnected commonplaces. 
Miss Boyson's Essay seems to have taken high rank with her Judges and 
amongst lovers of light literature, but wb are of the opinion that there 
is little likelihood that it will ever appeal strongly to the serious studen/t 
of history. 

We heartily agree with Mr. Eugene L. Didier, of Baltimore, when he 
says in his The Poe Cult (p. 283) that the Judges "either did not read 
the essay before awarding the prize, or they agreed with the writer of 
the essay who pronounced General Lee a "traitor." However, the Judges 
have removed all doubt on this score, for they give us to understand thalj 
they did read the essay first. 

Therefore, we can but conclude that they concur in the opinions ex- 
pressed, as they did not except to them. They have premeditatedly placed 
themselves in this awkward position. They must take the consequences. 



OCT 20 1909 



:qpy hr to cat. oiv. 

DEC 14 1909 



'■^ 






V 





-r^ '^7, 




